Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]

ELECTION EXPENSES

Return ordered,
Return of the Expenses of each Candidate at the General Election of February 1974, in the United Kingdom, as transmitted to the Returning Officers pursuant to the Representation of the People Act 1949, and of the number of votes polled by each candidate, the description of each candidate, the number of polling districts and stations, the number of electors, and the number of persons entitled to vote by post.—[Dr. Summerskill.]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Expenditure

Sir Anthony Meyer: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the total cost to public funds of the new proposals for public expenditure announced in the Gracious Speech.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Dr. John Gilbert): I must ask the hon. Gentleman to await my right hon. Friend's Budget Statement.

Sir A. Meyer: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if his right hon. Friend hopes to finance even a large part of this "drunken sailor" expenditure by a wealth tax, he will find not only that he has added colossally to net demand, but also that he will be unable to do so without producing bankruptcy among a great many family businesses and without also leading to the break-up of any farm large enough to be viable?

Dr. Gilbert: It is not for me to comment on what taxation proposals my right hon. Friend may introduce next week. As for expenditure, a great many of the proposals appeared in outline in that admir-

able document the Labour Party's election manifesto, the reception of which has resulted in the present composition of the House.

Mr. Higgins: May I congratulate my successor on his appointment? On the general point, will he give the House an assurance that the figures for each of the Government's expenditure proposals will be made available in time for the Budget debates, since they are clearly necessary for reasonable discussion of taxation changes?

Dr. Gilbert: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. So far as possible, the figures will be made available, but some of them will depend on questions of timing, decisions on which have not yet been made.

Mr. Horam: Has my hon. Friend any estimate of the effect on inflation of the previous Government's failure to cover their inflated public expenditure with adequate compensation?

Dr. Gilbert: We have not bothered to go into such exotic exercises as my hon. Friend suggests. Unfortunately, the costs of it are with us already and will be with us for many months ahead.

Mr. Hordern: Will the hon. Gentleman say how the cost of freezing council house rents will be paid for—whether through the rates or through Government subsidy?

Dr. Gilbert: Once again, I have to ask the hon. Gentleman to wait for my right hon. Friend's statement.

Widows' Incomes (Taxation)

Mr. Ashley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will reduce the rate of tax on widows' incomes.

Mr. Steel: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider making widows' pensions exempt from income tax.

Dr. Gilbert: I have noted the hon. Members' suggestions.

Mr. Ashley: In view of the anomalous treatment of widows in relation to married women and the unique difficulties faced by widows and single-parent families, will my hon. Friend seek to persuade his right hon. Friend to increase the tax


allowances for all these groups in order to remove some of the burden?

Dr. Gilbert: Again, I have to say that I cannot anticipate what my right hon. Friend's decision will be. I am sure he will recognise that tax allowances are of most benefit to those widows and single-parent families who already pay tax. It is always our objective to help those members of the community who are not as well off even to be in that position.

Mr. Steel: In his consideration of this problem, will the Chancellor note that many widows have now had to return to work because of the fairly small level of widows' pensions? All parties accept that. The widows feel very badly because, having done so, they are then penalised on their entitlement.

Dr. Gilbert: We recognise the concern which the hon. Gentleman feels in this matter. I draw his attention to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services said on 15th March in the House:
Our proposals for pensioners include not only retirement pensions but widowed pensioners, and invalidity pensioners."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th March 1974; Vol. 870, c. 525.]

Mr. Ridsdale: May I press the new Government, as I pressed the last Government, for the abolition of the earnings rule, to help such widows?

Dr. Gilbert: That is a matter neither for my right hon. Friend nor for myself, but for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Sterling Parity (Economic and Monetary Union)

Mr. Biffen: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to fix the parity of sterling in the context of European economic and monetary union.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Denis Healey): None, Sir.

Mr. Biffen: I am delighted by that answer, which, certainly by implication, suggests that there has been a Pauline conversion on the part of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to maximise the areas of agreement within this Chamber, will he take this opportunity to acknowledge the wisdom of my right hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale

(Mr. Barber) in floating sterling, a wisdom which has been underlined by the fact that the French have recently followed his example?

Mr. Healey: This is one of the many issues, as the hon. Gentleman will discover on Tuesday, on which I take exactly the same view in Government as I took in Opposition. The whole House will be aware that in 1972 the Government had no alternative but to drop the rate of sterling because of the state of the balance of payments at the time and the inflationary pressures under which the then Government were suffering. There was no opportunity of getting international agreement to a rate low enough to hold. There was, therefore, no alternative to floating.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that there are some at least who have more sympathy with the advice that he is likely to get from the Chancellor of the Duchy than with the advice he has just received from my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), particularly bearing in mind the need for the external discipline on the conduct of the present Government which would ensue from re-pegging the pound?

Mr. Healey: I am delighted to observe that the same differences as existed in the Conservative Party when in Government survive on the back benches now that it is in opposition.

Earnings Rule

Mr. Janner: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will propose increasing the sum which retirement pensioners can earn free of tax or reductions in their pensions.

Mr. Moate: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will propose increasing the sum which retirement pensioners can earn free of tax.

Dr. Gilbert: I have noted the hon. Members' suggestions. The earnings rule is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Mr. Janner: We recognise the hideous problems which affect the Government in their efforts to rebuild the economy, but will they nevertheless bear in mind the contribution made by retirement


pensioners who go out to work, and is this not also a matter which will shortly be the concern of the Chancellor?

Dr. Gilbert: My hon. and learned Friend is perfectly right. The contribution made by retirement pensioners who stay at work is considerable. My hon. and learned Friend will be aware that there are special provisions whereby pensioners over a certain age who are in employment and whose taxable income is of a certain level receive tax relief. It is the Government's view that the best thing for us to do to help all pensioners is to raise the basic rate, and this is what we are doing.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I congratulate the Financial Secretary on his appointment. Since this is a matter for the Secretary of State for Social Services, why was the Question not transferred?

Dr. Gilbert: That is not a question for me either, because I am not in charge of the order of Questions. The right hon. Gentleman will have plenty of opportunity to question my right hon. Friend in these matters on a suitable occasion.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Is the Minister aware that many of those in retirement are concerned by suggestions that this Government might reverse the tax concessions on the lower levels of unearned income brought in by the last Government? Will he seek to persuade his right hon. Friend before next Tuesday that, in his need for revenue, he should not adversely affect the position of those in retirement living on modest savings?

Dr. Gilbert: I am sure that those in retirement like all other members of the community—and particularly hon. Members opposite—will wish to play their full part in seeing that we get a fairer society.

£ Sterling (Value)

Mr. Skinner: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what, in percentage terms, is the value of the £ sterling at the latest official date, compared with 18th June 1970.

The Paymaster-General (Mr. Edmund Dell): Taking the internal purchasing power of the £ sterling as loop in June 1970, its value in January 1974, the latest

date available, is estimated to be 73p, on the basis of the change in the General Index of Retail Prices.

Mr. Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when I asked this Question from the other side of the House the answer used to be about world prices, warm currents off Peru being diverted, and silly little things like that? Will my right hon. Friend agree with me that the real reason was the 1973 Budget deficit of £4,000 million, commodity price speculation, property speculation and factors over which the previous Government had a great deal of control? As he is now in a position to do something about some of these things, will my right hon. Friend advise his right hon. Friend accordingly?

Mr. Dell: There are many factors behind the depreciation of the pound. One of them was the devaluation of sterling under the previous Government. It is true that world prices have had an effect on inflation in this country. It is important to ensure that the burden of any increase in world prices is fairly shared within the community.

Mr. Evelyn King: Will the hon. Gentleman accept a prophecy—that if the Government remain in office for a further three months, which is in doubt, and if election pledges are fulfilled, which also is in doubt, the record of inflation over the next three months is likely to exceed any in recorded British history?

Mr. Dell: If the reason for doubt about the continuance in office of the Government is the antics of the Opposition a few days ago, I have no doubt that we shall continue in office.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: Does the right hon. Gentleman have handy the corresponding figures for the period between October 1964 and June 1970?

Mr. Dell: I do not have them handy but I assure the right hon and learned Gentleman that they were nothing like these figures.

Mortgage Interest Rates

Mr. McNamara: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now make proposals designed to reduce interest rates paid by existing house purchasers.

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he plans to have with the Building Societies Association.

Mr. Dell: I am considering the present difficulties, and preliminary discussions were held with the Building Societies Association last week.

Mr. McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the grave social harm that has been done to many young married people who started to buy houses in 1970 and 1971 and have seen enormous increases in their mortgage repayments and interest charges? Will my right hon. Friend recommend to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that since, quite properly, we have frozen council house rents and helped people in some areas with their rates, equally we should freeze interest rates on mortgages on private houses? In fact, does he not agree that we should bring down those interest rates?

Mr. Dell: I am well aware of the problem mentioned by my hon. Friend, namely, the difficulties of people who have recently bought houses. All these matters will be under consideration and I hope that we shall be able to come to a conclusion on the subject before too long.

Mr. McCrindle: When next the right hon. Gentleman meets the Building Societies Association will he take steps to urge it to redouble its efforts to attract additional funds from the public, perhaps in ways to which it has not as yet turned its attention? If the right hon. Gentleman has any plans to give a subsidy in respect of existing owner-occupiers, will he make it conditional upon the building societies presenting a blueprint for additional and news ways of raising funds?

Mr. Dell: I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman, through his supplementary question, has himself urged the building societies to look for other sources of money that might be helpful in the current situation.

Mr. Skinner: When my right hon. Friend is studying this matter, will he take note of the fact that before the General Election in 1970 the Leader of the Opposition declared that he had proposals to lower mortgage interest rates below 8 per cent.? They were known as

the Merritt-Sykes proposals, based on the Australian system. May I ask my right hon Friend not to meddle with those proposals?

Mr. Dell: My hon. Friend has referred to another example showing where the plans of the Leader of the Opposition went awry.

Mr. Fell: In regard to the question raised about freezing rates of interest, does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that if interest rates were frozen without enormous subsidy arrangements forthcoming from the Government the supply of money would simply freeze up and there would be no mortgages for future house purchasers?

Mr. Dell: it is true that the interest rate at which building societies can offer mortgage money depends on the rate of borrowing. Nevertheless, there is a problem, to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention, and the Government must consider it as speedily as possible.

Coal Industry Dispute

Mr. Duffy: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the effect of the coal dispute on his forecasts for investment and economic growth in 1974.

Mr. Healey: Official forecasts are not normally presented on the basis of including and excluding the effects of specific labour disputes or other identified economic disturbances. It is not my intention to change this practice. Official forecasts do, however, take full account of recent major developments in the economy, and this year's forecasts will be no exception. These forecasts are normally given only at Budget time, and I must ask my hon. Friend to wait till then for information.

Mr. Duffy: In that case, will the Chancellor not allow himself to be deceived by any illusion of buoyancy in the economy which the first flush of recovery from short-time working may generate? Will he take steps not to depress the pound unduly next Tuesday?

Mr. Healey: I must not allow myself to be tempted to make the comments I should like to make in answer to my hon. Friend. However, I assure him that I shall preserve a proper stance in that context.

Income Tax (Age Exemption)

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will raise the income levels in respect of entitlement to age exemption, age relief and marginal age exemption.

Dr. Gilbert: Age relief was abolished on the introduction of the unified tax system. I have noted the hon. Lady's suggestion concerning age exemption and its associated marginal relief.

Mrs. Oppenheim: Will the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend to bear in mind, when he frames his Budget, that the majority of pensioners have small additional earnings, pension or savings income, and unless he intends to extend age exemptions, as the Conservative Government did, a good deal of any intending pension increase will go in tax, and that this is the cause of great bitterness among pensioners?

Dr. Gilbert: Of course we are all agreed on the need to do whatever is necessary to help pensioners. However, pensioners who qualify for either age exemption or marginal relief constitute a minority of the total body of pensioners, many of whom are dependent upon supplementary benefits to their income.

Public Sector Borrowing

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the level of the public sector borrowing requirement on his assumption of office.

Mr. Dell: The latest full figures available cover the first half of the current financial year, when the public sector borrowing requirement amounted to £2,932 million. An estimate of the outturn for the whole financial year will be given in the Financial Statement and Budget Report.

Mr. Dalyell: Has any incoming Government inherited debt of this order since the first administration of Cardinal Morton and Henry VII?

Mr. Dell: I remember Cardinal Morton and Henry VII very well, but I can assure my hon. Friend that Cardinal Morton did not inherit a problem like this.

Mr. Ridley: How much have the Government already added to the borrowing requirement by their profligate use of subsidies all round?

Mr. Dell: The hon. Gentleman must know that he must wait for my right hon. Friend's Budget Statement.

Mr. Nott: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the borrowing requirement has been substantially increased by giving the Financial Secretary an increase of more than £40 per week in his salary? If the Government are pursuing voluntary restraint in incomes, why should the Financial Secretary's remuneration be increased by over £40 per week when the Government came to office.

Mr. Dell: If the hon. Gentleman averages this out with the salary of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, he will be satisfied.

Full Employment

Mr. Edward Taylor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the maintenance of full employment will be a primary objective of his economic policy.

Mr. Healey: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Taylor: Can the Chancellor give a clear and unqualified assurance that he will not, as did the last Labour Government, seek to solve our economic problems by deliberately creating unemployment? In particular, will he have a quiet word with some of his foolish and extremist colleagues who, by the cancellation of the Greek good will visit, have put at risk, if they have not lost altogether, £70 million of frigate orders for the Clyde and many jobs in an area of high unemployment?

Mr. Healey: I must say that I find it a little surprising that the hon. Gentleman, who for a time was a member of the last Government, should have forgotten that they increased unemployment to a higher level than at any time since 1926 and were responsible over the past three months for an increase of unemployment even greater than that, an increase which, I am glad to say, today's unemployment figures show to have been replaced by a reduction of some 500,000 in the number of temporarily unemployed.

Mr. William Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that in no circumstances will the Government go back to a three-day week?

Mr. Healey: Yes, I can give that assurance with pride and satisfaction.

Mr. Carr: May I remind the Chancellor that the question refers to the maintenance and therefore the long-term basis of full employment? Is that his policy? He will recall that in his party's last period of office unemployment doubled. It was lower when we left office than when we took office.

Mr. Healey: First, let me congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his assumption of the responsibilities I held until very recently, and particularly on assuming them in conditions which do not require him to attempt to justify the actions of his predecessor who held my responsibilities at that time. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is my intention to maintain the highest level of employment which is compatible with sustainable and rapid growth.

International Monetary Fund

Mr. Pardoe: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to meet representatives of the International Monetary Fund.

Mr. Healey: I have no immediate plans to do so, but I hope to make many new contacts over the coming months.

Mr. Pardoe: What makes the Chancellor of the Exchequer think that the IMF will impose less stringent terms on our borrowing than it has imposed for Italy? Is he aware that the terms imposed on the Italians would be totally unacceptable to the British people?

Mr. Healey: I am well aware of the considerations which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, but I remind him that since the present Government took office the effective devaluation of sterling in terms of a weighted average of foreign currencies has been substantially lower than in the last months of the previous administration. This is bound to have its effect on the attitude of the International Monetary Fund, should I approach it, though I have taken no decision to do so.

Mr. Norman Lamont: Will the Chancellor say what are the amounts of conditional and unconditional facilities available from the IMF? Is access to those facilities in any way affected by a currency floating?

Mr. Healey: The total credit facilities available to the United Kingdom from the IMF amount to $3·4 billion. I should be grateful to have notice of the second question.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: In future borrowing, what importance will the right hon. Gentleman attach to offering North Sea oil revenues as security?

Mr. Healey: There is no indication whatever that such an idea is in the mind of any potential source of borrowing.

Inflation

Mr. Rost: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest estimate of the rate of inflation during the current year.

Mr. Dell: I propose to follow the example of my predecessors in not publishing forecasts of prices, which are subject to so many uncertainties, particularly in the international field.

Mr. Rost: If the Chancellor wants to curb the rate of inflation and encourage investment, should he not reduce the tax on profits and provide extra incentive to savers rather than carry out his threat to redistribute capital from savers to spenders?

Mr. Dell: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman considers that the previous Government followed his recommendations. If they did, I cannot see that they were successful.

Money Supply

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the increase in the money supply, according to the M3 definition, over the latest period of three months for which figures are available, expressed at an annual rate; and whether this rate of increase is in conformity with the monetary policies of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Dell: In the three months to banking January, M3 rose by about 6 per cent. or about 27 per cent. at an annual


rate. On monetary policy, I must ask the hon. Gentleman to await my right hon. Friend's Budget Statement on Tuesday.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: In view of some of the things that the right hon. Gentleman used to say in opposition, that was a rather cautious reply. In the light of what the Chancellor used to say in opposition about the monetary policy of the previous Government, would the right hon. Gentleman urge him to consider returning to the practice of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Jenkins) and publishing in the Budget a target figure for the growth of the money supply in the year ahead?

Mr. Dell: I do not think it would be appropriate to fix a target, but my right hon. Friend has heard what has been said and no doubt he will consider it.

Mr. Biffen: Does the right hon. Gentleman regard that figure of 27 per cent. as too high, about right, or too low?

Mr. Dell: I do not like it at all.

Import Savings

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has for import savings in order to reduce the balance of payments deficit.

Mr. Dell: As the Gracious Speech indicated, we shall be giving the highest priority to overcoming the economic difficulties created by the balance of payments deficit. But I cannot comment on any particular measures in advance of my right hon. Friend's Budget Statement.

Mrs. Short: May I suggest that my hon. Friend bears in mind that newsprint, tinplate and glass can all be recycled, to the benefit of the national economy and the advantage of scarce world resources? Will he consider this? In the meantime, does he not think that he could relieve all of us of the appalling obscenity of the non-returnable bottle?

Mr. Dell: My hon. Friend has put interesting questions. They are, however, questions for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Trade and Industry and I schall make sure they know of my hon. Friend's views.

Mr. Cormack: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm or deny the story about the Greek frigates, and can the Government afford to sacrifice this £60 million or £70 million when they are grappling with this problem?

Mr. Dell: I have no evidence on the point raised by the hon. Gentleman.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: With regard to the recycling of these scarce commodities, has the right hon. Gentleman seen the answer given to my Question yesterday by the Secretary of State for the Environment in respect of efforts to be made with local authorities on this, and is there co-ordination between these various Departments, since the right hon. Gentleman mentioned only the Secretary of State for Trade in this context?

Mr. Dell: I apologise to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I thought I referred to the Secretary of State for Industry.

MOTOR FUEL DUTY

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will reduce the amount of taxation on motor fuels.

Mr. Dell: I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget Statement.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: If the Minister considers this proposal he will realise that it would be one way of keeping down the cost of living by defraying the steep rise in the cost of petrol to the many millions of motorists and by also reducing the amount of transport costs, which inevitably push up prices in almost every sphere.

Mr. Dell: I have noted the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES (DEFICITS)

Mr. Dixon: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimates to have been the deficits of the nationalised industries in 1973–74; and what he expects them to be in 1974–75.

Dr. Gilbert: I expect revenue support to the nationalised industries to amount


to about £800 million in respect of 1973–74 of which roughly £550 million will take the form of deficit grants and compensation for price restraint. I am not yet in a position to say anything about 1974–75.

Mr. Dixon: Does the Minister agree that the figure is bound to be significantly higher than it was last year and, if that is so, that the rate of inflation is bound to be higher as well?

Dr. Gilbert: It is quite impossible to make predictions about the size of the nationalised industries deficits for next year until announcements about their pricing policies have been made.

Mr. Dalyell: Is not one of the skeletons in the cupboard the way in which no decision was reached month after month by the previous Government on pricing policy for the nationalised industries, to the detriment of investment? Although the Chancellor of the Exchequer has many difficulties, does my hon. Friend realise that some of us would like to see investment in the nationalised industries given a high priority, particularly in nuclear power?

Dr. Gilbert: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. His analysis of the situation is correct: it had an effect not only on the investment plan for nationalised industries but, unfortunately, upon their morale.

Mr Adley: Does not the figure announced by the hon. Gentleman make Concorde seem a most inexpensive investment?

Dr. Gilbert: All one would want to say about the spending plans of the Opposition is that, to the extent that they contributed to the deficit of the nationalised industries through price restraint and to the extent that they represent the costs of the confrontation policy of the Opposition, they made the bed and the rest of the country has had to lie on it.

Land and Property (Capital Gains Tax)

Mr. Michael Latham: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is his intention to introduce a special tax on land and property capital gains.

Dr. Gilbert: I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget Statement.

Mr. Latham: If the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduces such a tax next Tuesday as his predecessors have promised, will he give the fullest possible details of it at the earliest practical moment so as to avoid severe confusion in the housing market?

Dr. Gilbert: I am quite sure that my right hon. Friend will take the hon. Gentleman's remarks into account.

Retired Persons' Incomes

Mr. George Gardiner: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take steps to protect the incomes of retired people from the effects of Her Majesty's Government's promised proposals for the redistribution of wealth.

Dr. Gilbert: I have noted the hon. Member's view.

Mr. Gardiner: Will not the Financial Secretary recognise the great anxiety felt by many people who have saved for their retirement, particularly in view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's own attack on his predecessor's so-called tax handout to the wealthy, 30 per cent. of which went to people in retirement?

Dr. Gilbert: The whole House and the country will be grateful for the hon. Gentleman's simple identification between the party that takes care of those with wealth and the party that takes care of those that have no wealth.

Wealth Tax

Mr. Sedgemore: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the estimated yield of a wealth tax levied at the rate of 1 per cent. on capital fortunes of £50,000 to £100,000—excluding the value of an owner-occupied house—2 per cent. on £100,000 to £200,000, 3 per cent. on £200,000 to £300,000, 4 per cent. on £300,000 to £400,000 and 5 per cent. on £400,000 plus.

Dr. Gilbert: The answer is £210 million, on the assumption that the rates given would be applied to the respective slices of wealth, and that all owner-occupied houses would be exempt from the tax.

Mr. Sedgemore: Will my hon. Friend invite the Chancellor to bear in mind those modest figures when presenting his


Budget on Tuesday, together with his delightful and humane conference proposals to make the rich shout and squeal and scream?

Dr. Gilbert: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will have noted my hon. Friend's remarks.

Mr. Can: Does the Financial Secretary believe that it contributes to national unity deliberately to make any section of the population shout and scream?

Dr. Gilbert: We on the Government side of the House are content to ensure that our proposals bear most heavily on those whose shoulders can best bear the burden.

Value Added Tax (Works of Art)

Sir D. Walker-Smith: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has made, or proposes to make, regarding the EEC proposals in regard to VAT on works of art.

Mr. Dell: Officials have already drawn the EEC Commission's attention to the differences between its proposals for the VAT treatment of works of art and the special tax treatment allowed in this country. No opportunity will be lost of explaining to other member States the advantages of the latter.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the serious damage to the international art market, now based on London, which would result if certain European practices were forced upon us here?

Mr. Dell: Yes, I shall bear that fact in mind.

Mrs. Renée Short: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that this VAT is an undesirable Common Market practice which most of us in this country deplore? I hope my hon. Friend will give an undertaking that it will not be introduced on food, or increased on any of the other commodities that now bear it.

Mr. Dell: I do not think that my hon. Friend need have any doubt about that. The Question relates to VAT treatment of works of art, and in this country we have a special system of tax which we wish to preserve.

Mr. Higgins: Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify that remark? He says that his hon. Friend need not have any doubt about that. What precisely did that mean, in that context?

Mr. Dell: My hon. Friend was referring to the imposition of VAT on food.

Low-income Groups

Mr. Spriggs: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he proposes to take to protect pensioners, the sick, disabled, the unemployed, and other low-level income groups against the direct effect of income tax and inflation.

Dr. Gilbert: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services made clear in the debate on the Address, pensions and related benefits are to be uprated. My hon. Friend will understand that I cannot say more in advance of my right hon. Friend's Budget Statement.

Mr. Spriggs: I thank my hon. Friend for that assurance. Will he give further consideration to points raised in the General Election campaign, when the Labour Party gave an assurance to the nation about increased pensions and related benefits when the Chancellor brought his proposals before the House?

Dr. Gilbert: My hon. Friend can be certain that my right hon. Friend is fully aware of what we said in our election campaign. Our pledges will be honoured; many of them already have been.

Mr. Warren: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the need to remove the earnings rule for pensioners, which will be a direct help to them in this context? Furthermore, will he consider the need to raise the limits at which pensioners incur taxation?

Dr. Gilbert: If the hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to be present during the whole of Question Time he would have heard the answer to that already.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the desire of all on the Government side of the House to protect low-income groups, and that we expect to see in the Finance Bill this year proposals to make food exempt from VAT rather than zero-rated?

Dr. Gilbert: I cannot comment in advance on my right hon. Friend's Budget Statement.

Mr. Ridsdale: We welcome proposals to increase pensions, but will the Chancellor look particularly at proposals for rate relief? The proposals that have been made will hit pensioners considerably, especially in rural areas.

Dr. Gilbert: My right hon. Friend takes account of the economic circumstances of pensioners in framing his Budget Statement.

War Loan Stock

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider introducing tax relief for the holders of War Loan 3½ per cent. Government stock.

Mr. Dell: I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget Statement.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that successive Governments have treated this group of small investors extremely shabbily? Many of them have seen their savings completely eroded. If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to consider tax relief, will he date the stock so that holders of it may save something from the wreck at some point?

Mr. Dell: I note what the hon. Gentleman says, but I can make no further comment.

Interest Rates

Mr. Hooley: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will propose a system of two-tier interest rates so as to provide funds for social needs at a reduced level of interest.

Mr. Dell: No, Sir. Changing the terms of finance does not reduce the real cost in resource terms of providing facilities to meet social needs. A two-tier system of interest rates would be very difficult to administer and could involve substantial extra public expenditure if the Government were to subsidise some interest rates.

Mr. Hooley: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most valuable and successful actions of the Labour Government from 1966 to 70 was

precisely to introduce a special interest rate system for the purpose of housing? Why cannot that excellent principle be applied in other sectors?

Mr. Dell: In cases like that it can be done, but where resource costs are involved it seems to me that one should rationally work out one's priorities and apply them directly in terms of public expenditure.

Taxation (Zonal Variation)

Mr. Grimond: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider introducing different rates of taxation for different zones in the United Kingdom to offset transport charges and encourage regional development.

Dr. Gilbert: I cannot anticipate the Budget Statement.

Mr. Grimond: Will the Minister bear in mind that this system, which is the practice in several countries, is one of the easiest ways of assisting regional development and offsetting freight charges? It is particularly relevant presently in my constituency, as we are faced with a 10 per cent. new charge on freight and the "three-shilling loaf", as it is called. At a future time will the Minister consider this offset?

Dr. Gilbert: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for those suggestions. As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, the preservation of a balanced and successful regional policy is an important part of our intention.

Mr. Horam: Will my hon. Friend, instead, consider maintaining the regional employment premium, which is far more relevant to these problems than that suggestion?

Dr. Gilbert: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry has already made it clear that the existing arrangements for REP will be maintained while the possibilities for the future are being considered.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that REP is extremely damaging to intermediate areas, of which my constituency is one? Will he please take that fact carefully


into account in all his estimates of this appalling tax?

Dr. Gilbert: I must say that it is news to me that REP is a tax. The hon. Lady will recognise that REP has been welcomed by the CBI, among other institutions, and its future will depend on discussions that my right hon. Friend is having.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a very good precedent for the proposal by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond)? I cite the example of Norway, or Finland. If the Government are serious about imbalance of population, or anything else, may we suggest that this may be the only way of preventing the clearing of great parts of the population of northern Scotland?

Dr. Gilbert: I thank the hon. Lady for giving us those suggestions from her wide experience. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be glad to have them and will not be too proud to take them from any source.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Pig Production

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to assist pig producers in the present difficulties arising from the increased price of feeding stuffs.

The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Norman Buchan): I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) on 15th March.—[Vol. 870, c. 5.]

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: Does not the Minister realise that this is an urgent matter that should not run on from one question to the next? Pig farmers need the most earnest consideration. They are losing money on every pig they produce.

Mr. Buchan: We do not need any reminding from Tory Members of the seriousness of the position in the pig industry. We have inherited the problem; we are looking urgently into means of dealing with it.

Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles: It is not a party matter.

Mr. Biffen: As I may be one of the relatively few Members aware of the content of the answer that was sent to me, will the hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to indicate when he expects to be able to make a definitive statement which, we hope, will be satisfactory to the pig producers?

Mr. Buchan: Shortly. If I were the Leader of the House, I would say, "Not today, but shortly, I hope".

PRICES AND INCOMES POLICY

Mr. Tebbit: asked the Prime Minister if he will seek to meet representatives of professional bodies and consumers as well as those of trades unions and industry in his talks on prices and incomes policies.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I have myself no immediate plans to do so. My colleagues are always pleased to receive representations and will keep me informed.

Mr. Tebbit: Will the Prime Minister remember always that he is the leader of a minority Government, and that both the TUC and the CBI represent minorities in this country? Will he pay attention to the interests of people who do not belong to either of those bodies?

The Prime Minister: It has been the policy of successive Governments, whoever is Prime Minister, to meet and consider the interests of all groups in the country, whether minorities or majorities.

NEWSPAPER INDUSTRY

Mr. Ioan Evans: asked the Prime Minister if he will recommend the setting up of a Royal Commission to investigate the ownership of the newspaper industry.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend's proposal is under urgent consideration, Sir.

Mr. Evans: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. The events in Glasgow this week indicate the urgency of this proposal, but does my right hon. Friend realise that there was grave public


disquiet during the recent election campaign, when it was seen that The Times, The Guardian, the Daily Telegraph, the Sun, the Daily Mail and the Daily Express all lined up with the Tory Party, and only the Daily Mirror reflected the aspirations of the people? Does my right hon. Friend realise that, although it is now leaving the sinking yacht, the British Press should reflect the true opinions and aspirations of the British people?

The Prime Minister: I share with my hon. Friend and, I am sure, all hon. Members great anxiety about what has been announced this week in the Scottish newspaper industry. I am meeting representatives of the Scottish TUC this afternoon, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade will meet representatives of the unions concerned and of the employers. On the second point, the most relevant happening at the election, on the question of an inquiry into the newspaper industry, was the fact that on successive days both Aims of Industry and Mr. Briginshaw of NATSOPA wrote to The Times calling for a Royal Commission of Inquiry. I should have thought that between Aims of Industry and Mr. Briginshaw there was a fair amount of room for middle-ground opinion.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Does the Prime Minister agree that the economic problems of the regional and Scottish newspapers are too urgent for consideration by a Royal Commission, whose report, in his own words, may take years? Does he accept that the economic problem is serious, and will he pay special attention to the acute problem of the high price of newsprint?

The Prime Minister: I agree entirely. That is why, instead of waiting for a Royal Commission on the Scottish problem, I am having a meeting this afternoon at four o'clock, and my right hon. Friend one at, I think, 4·45.

Mr. Atkinson: Will the Prime Minister assure the House that when considering the problems suffered by the papers he has mentioned he will consider also the difficulties which the independent newspapers—Labour Weekly, Tribune and the Morning Star—suffer? As a true democrat, will he include Left-wing as well as Right-wing newspapers?

The Prime Minister: The Question is about a Royal Commission. I think that the House is concerned about various aspects of the freedom of the Press. I do not think that it would be right for me, when considering the matter this afternoon, to talk about the problems of individual newspapers.

Mr. Heath: When the Prime Minister considers this matter, will he recognise that there have been two major inquiries into the Press during the past 25 years which have revealed, on each occasion, think, weaknesses of management in the Press and, at the same time, problems of overmanning and restrictive practices? The solution has defied all Governments and those who have been concerned with the matter. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the real question is whether a further Royal Commission is required or whether we ought to address ourselves more vigorously to dealing with the particular problems which affect the economics of the Press, and thus the employment of those who are affected by the position of newspapers such as those in Scotland?

The Prime Minister: If I understand the right hon. Gentleman aright, he is referring to the Shawcross Royal Commission and to the inquiry conducted by the Economist in 1966–67, which certainly showed some horrifying problems in management as well as the other issues he has mentioned. Certainly these are matters to be inquired into, but it has been alleged from different sides of the political spectrum that there are problems about the freedom of the Press, and this also should be inquired into.

LONDON COMMODITY PRICES

Mr. Horam: asked the Prime Minister if he will establish a commission to examine the London commodity markets.

The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) earlier this week.—[Vol. 870, c. 846.]

Mr. Horam: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, which is certainly an improvement on the supine inactivity of the previous administration in this


important matter. Does he not agree that the core of the issue is that wealthy individuals and companies are pouring millions of pounds on to the commodity markets to protect themselves against inflation, thus raising industrial costs and making inflation a great deal worse for everybody else?

The Prime Minister: Yes, it is an extremely complicated issue. In the case of many recent investments—if that is the right word—in commodity markets, it has been not so much for speculative reasons, or to gamble on the markets, as to protect the people concerned, when they found gold or silver too expensive, against a fall in the value of money both nationally and internationally. There are also big international problems here, and obviously the problem cannot be solved on the basis of a single domestic market. These are all matters which I am taking into consideration.

Mr. McCrindle: If such a commission is set up, will it be encouraged to look into the markets in aluminium and soya beans, in which, although there is no futures market and therefore no speculation, prices have nevertheless continued to rise?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that anyone who studies the problem necessarily confines it to those markets where there are futures markets. What I just said about the need for international as well as national action—which obviously struck a chord on the benches opposite—was a direct quotation from a speech which made at the Labour Party Conference last October.

Minister for the Disabled

Mr. Janner: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement concerning the scope of the responsibilities of the Minister for the Disabled.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), one of the Under-Secretaries of State for the Department of Health and Social Security, is responsible for co-ordinating the activities of that Department in relation to the disabled. He will also be available for consultation by other Government Departments on the improvements of facilities for disabled people.

Mr. Janner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his creation of a separate post—the Minister for the Disabled—and the appointment of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) as its first incumbent have given great pleasure and hope to those concerned? Will he assure the House that it is the intention of the Government to introduce a disablement income as soon as possible, and, meanwhile, that the Government intend to extend the categories of seriously disabled people whose relatives can obtain attendance allowances, so as to get rid of some of the inhumane anomalies that have caused so much distress and anger so far?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his opening words—especially the tribute to my hon. Friend, whom the whole House has recognised as a great pioneer from before the time of the Private Member's Bill carried through at the end of the 1970 Parliament. He will be concerned with all matters affecting disablement, including disabled children, though they are the direct responsibility of other Ministers.
I cannot answer the particular questions of my hon. Friend. It is entirely a matter of priorities, and my hon. Friend will know of the very high priority given to one element of expenditure within the field of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Mr. Woodhouse: Is the Prime Minister aware that there will be a very warm welcome also from the Opposition to the appointment of the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) to take charge of this important subject, which, in the past, has always been conducted as a matter of inter-party alliance? Will he do all that he can to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to join the alliance?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful again to the hon. Member for what he said about my hon. Friend. This must at any time, and particularly in these times, be a matter of priority within certain social expenditure fields.

Mr. Pardoe: Is the Prime Minister aware that on all sides of the House the appointment will be welcomed, both for personal reasons and because of the action that it indicates?
Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that the hon. Gentleman's Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, though magnificently well intentioned, has failed to be fully effective because of lack of cash? What is now needed for the disabled is a commitment from the present Government, unlike the last, that they will move towards a disability income.

The Prime Minister: My studies of the working of that Act, excellent though it has been, reveal to some extent a failure to ensure that the more laggard local authorities keep up with the record of the best. Above all, it is surely a problem of the identification of people in need, of finding them instead of waiting until, in some tragic cases, they have been found dead because no one was caring for them. That is the biggest problem that must be tackled today. There is a cash problem. I will not add to what I said earlier on that point.

TUC AND CBI

Mr. Rost: asked the Prime Minister when he next proposes to meet the TUC.

Mr. Skinner: asked the Prime Minister when he has any plans to meet the CBI and the TUC.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on 19th March to the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe).—[Vol. 870, c. 74.]

Mr. Rost: Is the promise by Mr. Hugh Scanlon, of the engineers' union, to take industrial action in pursuit of a pay claim well in excess of phase 3 the first instalment of a new social contract?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman's supplementary question was predictable and predicted. He will have seen that Mr. Scanlon yesterday complained that the reporting of what he had said had been distorted and sensationalised. We are talking now about discussions with the TUC and the CBI. Perhaps we may begin to turn our backs on the election period, when speeches by individual trade unionists were whipped up out of all relation to the importance of those statements, and concentrate on talks with the TUC and the CBI.

Mr. Skinner: When my right hon. Friend meets the CBI, will he be kindly in all his references to the Leader of the Opposition, in view of the great assistance that he is currently giving to the Government?

The Prime Minister: I may be slow in my response, but I cannot see what that supplementary question has to do—even if I understood what it meant—with meetings with the CBI.

Mr. Bidwell: Will my right hon. Friend agree that a high-wage economy is totally desirable, and that he could well pay rapt attention to any proposals that come from the TUC in this regard, both now and when he eventually returns with the big Labour majority that he requires?

The Prime Minister: Higher real wages, yes, Sir.

Mr. Heath: The Prime Minister will be aware that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has now refused to refer either the nurses' or the teachers' case to the Pay Board in its capacity of dealing with relativities. It is well known that there are others, such as the postmen, who accepted a stage 3 settlement and were excluded from the anomalies arrangements on the basis, I believe, that they would then have the option of going under the relativities procedure. Will the Prime Minister now say how these extremely important groups of nurses, teachers, postmen and others will be dealt with in order that they may have fair consideration?

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend had to say in the debate last Monday, when, I think, the right hon. Gentleman heard his speech. As regards the treatment of these cases, I shall leave it to my right hon. Friend to make clear to the right hon. Gentleman and the House exactly how they are to be handled

Mr. Heath: The Prime Minister will agree that this is an extremely important matter. All the Secretary of State has said so far is that he refuses to refer these matters. If the Government do not believe that the Pay Board can function satisfactorily, they have no alternative means by which to deal with these cases. In fairness to these extremely important groups, the Prime Minister ought to be


able to say what the Government propose to do.

The Prime Minister: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about their importance, and for that reason I shall not quote back at him what he used to say to me, that we cannot discuss—as he said on the miners' case—individual claims across the Floor of the House. I agree that they are extremely important, and that is why they are being studied with great care. An answer will be given to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Dalyell: At this welcome meeting with the Scottish TUC, will the Prime Minister bear in mind the deeply unsatisfactory nature of the redundancy terms offered to those whose chances of getting a similar job in Glasgow and elsewhere in central Scotland are extremely remote?

The Prime Minister: Apart from the serious factor of the announced closure of these newspapers and the heavy unemployment, I believe that in the minds of all hon. Members is the deep anxiety that, so far, the employers—for reasons which, I think, appear good to them—have been unable to make any offer on redundancies comparable with what is normally expected in that industry.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that in terms of the need to keep our creditworthiness in the world high because of the borrowings we have to make, it is extremely important that his Government should give the impression of using the machinery that is there until something better has been put in its place? Does he not agree that to leave it in a position of limbo, as his hazy announcement a minute or two ago seemed to leave it, can only damage the country and its creditworthiness?

The Prime Minister: On the contrary, my right hon. Friend explained the position so clearly last Monday that it met with the full satisfaction of the Opposition, to the point where they withdrew their amendment and, indeed, went further and claimed credit for his statement, which had been drafted the week before.

Mr. Thorpe: Does the Prime Minister not agree that it will be a somewhat strange situation if the Leader of the Opposition has now found a list of cases

which he thinks ought to be referred to the Pay Board on relativities, as being necessary to go beyond phase 3, while the Prime Minister, for his part, finds himself unable to agree to that?

The Prime Minister: The whole matter could have been resolved easily if the Royal Commission I proposed a year ago had been set up and had produced its report. Then we should have known how to handle these matters.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Heath: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business of the House for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY 25TH MARCH—Motions on the Rate Support Grant (England and Wales) Order, and the (Increase) (Scotland) Orders, the Rating of Minor Alterations to Dwellings Order, the Local Government Cemeteries Orders and on the Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations.

TUESDAY 26TH MARCH—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget Statement.

At seven o'clock, the Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed Private Business for consideration.

Motion on the Agriculture Payments (Extension) (Northern Ireland) Order.

WEDNESDAY 27TH MARCH and THURSDAY 28TH MARCH—Continuation of the Budget debate.

At the end on Thursday, motion on the Motor Vehicles (Speed Limits on Motorways) (Amendment) Regulations.

FRIDAY 29TH MARCH—Second Reading Of the Independent Broadcasting Authority Bill, and of the Rabies Bill.

Motion on the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications (Dissolution) Order.

MONDAY 1ST APRIL—Conclusion of the debate on the Budget Statement.

Mr. Heath: May I ask the Leader of the House whether the Government will


continue the practice of having the relevant Minister make a statement in the House after negotiations in Brussels? In particular, could we be assured that the Minister of Agriculture will make a statement to the House on Monday after his current visit to Brussels?
It may be that the Secretary of State for Social Services will be speaking in the Budget debate. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will also arrange that she will make a statement to the House on any question of social service benefits which may be dealt with in the Chancellor's speech, before she makes her speech in the Budget debate, so that we shall have time to consider the details before she takes part in the debate?

Mr. Short: My right hon. Friend will certainly make a statement when he returns from Brussels. I can confirm that the Secretary of State for Social Services, if she catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, hopes to speak on the third day of the Budget debate. I will convey the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion on the other point to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I make an appeal to the House? We have three statements today and an important debate on Welsh affairs. The business next week is the Budget, and there cannot be much scope today for discussion on that. I hope that hon. Members will try to confine themselves to matters dealing with next week. Next Thursday I will allow rather more latitude about future business.

Mr. Pardoe: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to Motion No. 15? Is he aware that this deals with the broadcasting of the Budget speech? May I ask him whether he will accept the proposal signed by 30 Members of all parties that the Chancellor's Budget speech might, as an experiment, be broadcast on this occasion?

[That, as an experiment, and in order to assist Members to make up their minds on the general issue of the broadcasting of the proceedings of the House, arrangements be made for the broadcasting on television and radio of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget speech on Tuesday 26th March.]

Mr. Short: Personally I have a great deal of sympathy with this but obviously the motion was put down much too late for anything to be done this year. As I said last week, I very much hope that in this Session there will be an opportunity for the House to decide on the broadcasting of our proceedings generally.

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the House if and when he proposes to make a statement on the facilities provided for Members and their secretaries in the House and whether he intends to reinstate the Boyle Committee?

Mr. Short: I am not proposing to make a statement on facilities for Members and their secretaries next week. I realise that a great many hon. Members are having difficulties in present circumstances. I invite all hon. and right hon. Members who have problems and who wish to come to talk to me to do so. I will see that the Government consider their representations.

Sir B. Braine: Bearing in mind the Government's unequivocal declaration during the election that they would kill the Maplin project, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that yesterday's statement, incautious and uncertain, about its future leaves the people of South Essex and Southend in great uncertainty? Can we expect a statement soon to the effect that a firm decision has been made on this project?

Mr. Short: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade is, I understand, making a statement today.

Mr. Hastings: Can the right hon. Gentleman ensure that we get a full statement next week from the Secretary of State for Industry when he returns after his conversations about Concorde with the French?

Mr. Short: I would not guarantee that there will be a statement next week. I am sure, however, that my right hon. Friend, as is his custom, will keep the House very fully informed on all his discussions on this matter.

Mr. Finsberg: Will the Leader of the House, in his capacity as the guardian of back-bench Members on all sides, please set up the Services Committee


next week because Members' interests are being gravely hampered by not having this Committee?

Mr. Short: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Tebbit: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether it will be under the Local Government Cemeteries Order or the Rabies Bill that he will honour his pledge to pay the fines of the Clay Cross councillors?

Mr. Short: Much better than the hon. Gentleman's usual effort! My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will make a statement on this in due course.

PRINCESS ANNE (KIDNAP ATTEMPT)

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a further statement about the attempt last night to kidnap Princess Anne.
I am glad to be able to inform the House that the four persons who were severely injured are not now considered to be in serious danger. As I said to the House last night, Princess Anne and Captain Phillips were unhurt.
As has been reported in the Press, the man who was apprehended by the police is Ian Sydney Ball, aged 26, who appeared at Bow Street Magistrates' Court this morning and was remanded in custody for a week on a charge of attempted murder. Police inquiries are continuing. It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the many matters which may come in question in court proceedings.
I have this morning discussed with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and with my own advisers such action as it seems sensible to take at once to increase the safeguards already taken against attacks of this kind. The examination of the issues and the conclusions reached must remain confidential if they are to be effective in enabling us to achieve the greatest degree of security that can be obtained without an unacceptable interference with the ability of public figures to lead lives as near normal as possible.

Mr. Prior: The whole House will share in the great relief of the nation over the escape of Princess Anne and Captain Phillips from injury and in the fact that the four injured persons are not in serious danger and are expected to make a speedy recovery. We all agree that it is right that the conclusions of the inquiry should be confidential. Is he aware that the public will expect some further reassurance in general terms at the earliest possible date? Will he also give consideration to the question of publicity of the time and routes which Royal visits take to see whether this does not lead to unnecessary risks? Is there any evidence to support reports that major acts of terrorism are likely to be perpetrated against public figures this spring? Has he any evidence to support the view that this was one of them?

Mr. Jenkins: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said and for his endorsement of what I am sure is right—that the conclusions must remain broadly confidential. If, after the review, or in the course of it, I can give any further reassurance, I will gladly do so. There is no indication at present that there was lax security on this occasion. It is very difficult to deal completely with isolated acts of this sort, although we were perhaps fortunate in the limited nature of the outcome.
I will, of course, give full consideration to the question of publicity to public appearances, timing and routes, but it is not possible for public figures to make public appearances as it were clandestinely.
It is important that I should not make any statement that bears on the trial, but, as I think has emerged, there is no present indication that this was other than an isolated act by an individual.

Mr. Lipton: My right hon. Friend knows that certain public figures by reason of their official duties are provided with police protection. Will he ensure that the cars used by these people are fitted with bullet-proof glass and with radio-telephonic methods of communication?

Mr. Jenkins: I will consider those two suggestions, but it is not altogether easy for bullet-proof glass to be used without the cars in which the public figures ride


around taking on the nature of semiarmoured vehicles, and one would have to consider carefully whether that was desirable.
Radio-telephones can certainly also be considered, and they are used in certain circumstances for security purposes. In the incident last night unquestionably the personal two-way radio set of the constable on duty provided a faster means of communication than could have been provided by any radio-telephone.

Mr. Dykes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the behaviour of Inspector Beaton, the protection officer for Her Royal Highness and Captain Mark Phillips, who resides in my constituency, has earned the admiration and respect of the whole country for an act of outstanding courage, as was also displayed by the other participants? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a closer look needs to be taken at several aspects—and I bear in mind his difficulties in answering this question—in our security protection for the Royal Family and other distinguished personages, namely, the training of chauffeurs in such emergency circumstances and the deterrent capability of their escort vehicles?

Mr. Jenkins: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to the behaviour of his constituent which, together with that of the others involved, was exemplary. I am sure that what he says expresses the view of the whole House. The other matter to which he draws attention will be within review.

Mr. Lee: Presumably my right hon. Friend's view of this incident being an isolated one is tentative at the moment, but will he bear in mind that there is always the danger when acts of this kind happen that disturbed persons may resort to imitative tactics and that the next few weeks may be a time of particular danger to all public figures?

Mr. Jenkins: Yes, I will bear in mind that and other relevant considerations.

Mr. Tugendhat: The Home Secretary will be aware that my constituents are becoming increasingly accustomed in recent months to senseless acts of violence, but that this incident has caused an even greater shock than did some earlier ones. Will he convey the sym-

pathy of the people of Westminster to those who were wounded in the incident, our congratulations to the police on their efficiency and bravery and our congratulations to Princess Anne and Captain Mark Phillips on their escape?

Mr. Jenkins: Yes, I will endeavour to do that. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for speaking on behalf of his constituents in this central part of the Metropolis.

MAPLIN AIRPORT

The Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Peter Shore): The Government have announced their intention to re-examine certain major development projects in the field of the environment and public transport. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment said in a Written Answer yesterday, the Maplin project for the third London airport is one of these. He also said that he was authorising no further work in the meantime.
Accordingly, I have set in hand a reappraisal of air traffic forecasts for the 1980s and 1990 to take account of the recent increase in fuel prices and the growing use of wide-bodied aircraft. I have also asked for a reassessment of the forecasts of noise disturbance around airports and I shall be examining the possibility of greater use of airports in regions outside the South-East.
This review will be carried out in consultation with the Civil Aviation Authority, the British Airports Authority, and British Airways, and a further statement will be made to the House before the Summer Recess.

Mr. Peter Walker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement amounts to saying that he intends to comply with the law as laid down by the Maplin Development Act 1973, which insisted that the Government had a statutory responsibility to carry out such a review before any reclamation work took place?
Secondly, will he make sure that in any review the Government carefully consider the advantages and disadvantages of Paris replacing London as a centre of European aviation, and the advantages and disadvantages of the Port of London


recovering from Rotterdam its place as a port for major and sizeable ships?
Finally, will he consider not just the important environmental effects on Maplin and the surrounding areas of Essex but also the effects of any alternative site on areas such as Gatwick, Heathrow, Stansted and Luton?

Mr. Shore: I am glad to have the right hon. Gentleman's support for the review of the Maplin project upon which we are about to embark. In the previous Parliament we did not get the impression that there was the enthusiasm and open-mindedness for such a review that the right hon. Gentleman has just shown. Of course, the competitiveness of Paris as against London in terms of air traffic, and of the Port of London against continental ports, will be considered, as will the whole problem of alternative sites for the expansion of air traffic.

Mr. Huckfield: Will my right hon. Friend accept that many of us feel that this is the most sensible and rational statement on Maplin that has been made in the House for the past four years? Will he also accept that the only genuine long-term way of reducing aircraft noise is to spend more money on the development of quieter aeroplane engines?

Mr. Shore: I hope that we shall continue to be able to make sensible and rational statements from the Front Bench in this Parliament. My personal view is that it is indeed in the development of quieter engines that the longer-term solution to these difficult problems lies.

Sir B. Braine: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this further delay in reaching a final decision will be disappointing to the people who have to bear the brunt of this development if it ever takes place—the people of South Essex and Southend? Is he aware that many important decisions regarding our constituency interests in road communications have been held up because of the uncertainty? May we have an assurance that decisions on the special problems of South-East Essex will not be delayed any longer by uncertainty about this wretched project?

Mr. Shore: The whole House will have sympathy with the views of the hon.

Gentleman, who has had to bear the heat and burden of the day—at least during the last Parliament. But it is not unreasonable for us to indicate that there are other areas of the country, in the South-East and elsewhere, which need to be considered. Therefore, it is right for us to undertake a thorough but as speedy an inquiry as possible.

Mr. Alan Lee Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider making a separate statement about the seaport, since that aspect should not be confused with the airport?

Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend has a good point and I will draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who has responsibility for that matter.

Mr. Steel: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he will have Liberal parliamentary support for the cancellation of this project as soon as he cares to announce it? Will he ask his colleagues in the Department of the Environment to look at this important matter? In the review which is about to be conducted, does he not agree that one option would be the building of a second runway at Gatwick? Since planning decisions are about to be taken in the next few weeks on Gatwick which will preempt that option, will he ask his colleagues to take a careful look at the situation?

Mr. Shore: Yes, I shall look at that matter. I was not aware until the hon. Gentleman put the matter to me that the time factor was as pressing as it appears to be.

Mr. Jessel: Will the Secretary of State examine the question of crash risks? Will he bear in mind that if the Turkish aircraft that crashed near Paris a fortnight ago had crashed 20 minutes later, it could have fallen on a built-up area in Greater London? Is he aware of the British Airports Authority's official forecast that, if there were no Maplin airport, there would be 1,000 flights each day in and out of Heathrow by 1985? Does he not regard that figure, or anything approaching it, as an unreasonable level of crash risk? Will he look once again at whether it is right to have an airport by the sea to enable aircraft to


take off and land in such an area instead of over residential areas?

Mr. Shore: If there were not a case for an airport by the sea, as the hon. Gentleman puts it, it is well known that these debates would not have taken place in this House in the last Parliament. I understand that consideration, but these matters, including the matter of safety, which he mentioned, will all be taken into account in the review which I have just announced.

Mr. Atkinson: Does my right hon. Friend recollect the unequivocal statement made by his colleagues now in the Cabinet that if there were to be a Labour administration, Maplin would be killed immediately? Since a Labour administration is now in office, and bearing in mind that earlier statement, will the Secretary of State now give some assurance to the House that British Railways, which have held land pending the final outcome of the discussions on Maplin, will be instructed to make that land available to local authorities to enable housing and road projects to go ahead?

Mr. Shore: I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to look into that point; but it is surely not unreasonable for us to take three months or so to carry out the review.

Mr. Hastings: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that any decision to cancel Maplin will be bitterly resented by millions of people who live around London's existing airports and who are hoping for relief? Does he realise that we shall need precise details about the extra people, housing, development, and access routes to airports such as Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, Luton and Southend? Finally, has he consulted county councils affected, such as East Sussex, West, Sussex, Surrey and Hertfordshire to obtain their views?

Mr. Shore: Not at this stage since I have announced only that a review is to be undertaken, hut I wish to add that what we discover will be against the background of a number of changes in the last year or so, involving a new pattern of air traffic movement and quantities and types of aircraft likely to be used.

Until we get that picture clear, these other factors cannot be fully considered.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that there is an early statement on the seaport project at Maplin? Is he aware that, whatever the arguments about a third London airport, there is no case whatever for a new seaport at Maplin and that the sooner it is dead and buried the better?

Mr. Shore: I should not like to comment on that point, but the Port of London, as well as Southampton, has a great interest in the sea traffic of this country.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman's non-statement confirms that the Government will do what the law requires and what their Conservative predecessors put in hand two months ago, but will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what advice he has given to Essex County Council about the housing programme in the new town and the roads across Essex, and what advice he has given to the staff of the Maplin Development Authority, which was created in this House, so that their morale in the interim will not be lowered?

Mr. Shore: On the question of advice to the Essex County Council and the other local authorities involved, I must point out that that must fall to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who has the broad responsibility for the planning of new towns and all the other matters.

Mr. Bell: Whatever additional use may be made of airports outside South-East England, will the Secretary of State ensure that any reconsideration is governed by the knowledge of the fact that existing use of Heathrow in terms of aircraft movements is intolerable and must be reduced?

Mr. Shore: That is a matter which will be fully considered in the further review of air traffic which I have just announced.

Mr. Hooley: In making his review, will my right hon. Friend take into account the general economic consequences for regional policy of the siting of major airports of this kind, and the


fact that Yorkshire and Humberside is the only major industrial region of England with no major airport?

Mr. Shore: I would draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the part of my statement in which I said,
I shall be examining the possibility of greater use of airports in regions outside the South-East.

Mr. Tebbit: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept my thanks for his statement that he will continue with this inquiry, but will he also accept that, if he draws the right conclusions, he may be able to rely on me to get the Labour Government out of trouble again when they come to the right conclusion to scrub the whole project?

Mr. Shore: What the hon. Gentleman says shows the importance that hon. Members attach to getting the right decision on great matters such as the siting of airports around London.

Mr. Allason: Are we to understand that the Roskill Commission will be entirely overthrown and that it is possible to have an airport elsewhere in the country to relieve London? Does he recall that the Secretary of State for the Environment said that air noise nuisance at Luton has already reached an intolerable level?

Mr. Shore: The information on which the Roskill Commission reported in terms of input would be substantially different at the present time from the information then. As for the overthrow of Roskill, I can hardly be held to be the first to overthrow it when the Conservative Government rejected its central recommendation.

Mr. Osborn: Will an accurate assessment be made of the degree of silence of modern engines for the 1980s and 1990s so that there can be a guarantee of 24-hour operating at airports close to built-up areas, such as those at Heathrow, Birmingham and Manchester? I welcome the regional study mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, but will he pursue a national airports policy in the light of European requirements? Will he state whether he believes it advisable for all air travel to use S/TOL and V/TOL aircraft from a number of small

airports or a few large airports with good ground communications between the point of origin and the point of destination?

Mr. Shore: Those are technical questions, and I hope that the review will take account of them. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about engine noise, and the likely development in the trend towards quieter engines is one of the keys to the whole problem.

Mr. Heath: Although the Secretary of State is right to carry out the review required by law and for which preparation has already been made, and recognising that any important project of this kind encounters certain interests whether economic already at Heathrow or local interests which will be disturbed by any new venture, will he recognise that very great national interests are involved—the future of London and aviation and the seaports which are of maximum importance not only for our generation but for those to come? When he completes his review and the facts point to the need to continue Maplin, I hope that he will not hesitate to overthrow his party's policy, just as so many of his colleagues have already done.

Mr. Shore: The right hon. Gentleman can be assured that when the necessary studies have been completed we shall consult first of all the national interest. My doubt, however, is whether our interpretation of the national interest is necessarily the same as his.

NORTHERN IRELAND

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Merlyn Rees): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement, as promised yesterday by my right hon. Friend, the Leader of the House, about the deaths of the two soldiers of the 14th/20th King's Hussars in Northern Ireland in the early hours of yesterday morning.
I was in Northern Ireland myself at the time and immediately arranged a meeting at which the General Officer Commanding, Northern Ireland, and the chief constable reported to me before I left on this tragic accident.
The facts are that at about one o'clock in the morning two soldiers of the King's Hussars were returning from leave to


their operational location at Newcastle, together with a driver and an escort. In accordance with long-standing practice, they were wearing civilian clothes and for security reasons were travelling in a Commer van. They had travelled from the airport to their unit headquarters at Gosforth Castle where they had collected their personal arms before proceeding to their operational locations.
The vehicle in which they were travelling broke down at a place known as Shaw's Lake near Glenanne. A telephone call was made to unit headquarters at Gosforth Castle for a relief vehicle to come to its assistance. The vehicle which had broken down was parked at the roadside to await the arrival of the relief vehicle.
The soldiers concerned were outside the broken-down vehicle when an unmarked police car carrying members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary who were on patrol in the area arrived on the scene. The police were wearing uniform and were armed. Their car, with its headlights on, stopped a short distance from the soldiers. There was an encounter between the soldiers and the police as a result of which one soldier, Corporal M. F. Herbert, was fatally wounded. A second soldier who was the escort was injured in the arm.
The relief Army vehicle, which was a civilianised land rover containing soldiers in civilian clothes, approached the scene of the shooting and, finding what seemed to be the results of an IRA ambush, the NCO in charge ordered two soldiers—one of whom was the unwounded passenger in the first vehicle and the other one of his own men—to drive to the nearest phone box in Mowhan to phone for help while he himself remained at the scene. While the soldiers were telephoning, a second police mobile patrol which had been alerted by the first patrol to the earlier incident at Shaw's Lake recognised the land rover from the description given to them. This second patrol was also in an unmarked police car; these police were in uniform and were carrying arms. There was a further encounter as a result of which a second soldier, Corporal H. J. Cotton, was fatally wounded.
These two incidents are the subject of joint investigations by the police and military authorities in Northern Ireland.

No effort will be spared to ascertain all the facts concerning what took place and, without prejudice to the outcome of these investigations, the police and the Army have already set in hand an urgent and thorough review of procedures aimed at preventing any possible recurrence. The coroner of the area has been informed of the deaths, post mortem examinations have been made and public inquests will be held. The full results of the chief constable's investigations, as in all other cases where death or injury results from the use of firearms, will be reported to the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland.
In these circumstances it would be improper for me to enter into a detailed discussion of the exact circumstances of what took place in a way which might prejudice the outcome of the official investigations and further consideration of the matter by the coroner and the DPP. I will of course again report to the House when the full facts are known. I must say at this stage, however, that there is no truth whatsoever in allegations that the soldiers involved were members of an under-cover plain clothes Army unit.
The House will, I know, wish to express its deepest regret at this tragedy and to convey its sympathy in the fullest measure to the wives and families of those who were killed.

Mr. Pym: I wish to associate my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself with the expressions of sympathy and condolence to the wives and families of the two soldiers who died. I am sure that it is right to set up an inquiry and that the House will await eagerly the outcome of the inquiry and the further information which the right hon. Gentleman has promised.
I wish to ask him several questions. First, were the normal procedures of laison in use? If so, did they prove faulty, or were they neglected on this occasion? This is especially relevant in view of the second shooting, because presumably the Army should have been alerted by the RUC to what was happening.
Second, why were civilian vehicles used and not Army vehicles? In his statement the right hon. Gentleman said that it was for security reasons, but I trust that


this aspect will be reinvestigated and reconsidered, because it may be faulty.
Third, why was there such a long delay in any announcement of the incident? Has not that led to speculation and all the unfortunate consequences of that speculation? Would it not have been better to say something very much earlier?
Fourth, can the right hon. Gentleman say how often members of the RUC open fire in circumstances when their suspicions are aroused as on this occasion? Should not they normally contact the Army or the UDR and ask them to send a patrol?
This is a tragic accident, and no stone must be left unturned in learning every lesson from it, because the confidence of the population in the security forces is so obviously crucially important at present.

Mr. Rees: With regard to the procedures and the whole purpose of my statement, obviously there were faults. Something went badly wrong, and I am looking into the incident as a matter of urgency.
As for the use of civilian vehicles, I think that the right hon. Gentleman will know from his previous experience that in certain parts of the Province, especially perhaps in that part of it, with mined culverts and so on and with its nearness to the border, the sight of a Service vehicle is often enough to draw fire. Decisions taken over a series of years were that civilianising was a protection. I shall look at that.
With regard to the delay, I was in the Province and I heard about the incident early in the morning. I instructed that there should be a preliminary inquiry to find out what had gone on before anything was said, because of the confused reports which were coming through. Whatever had been done at that time, a confused statement would only have added to the confusion.
As for how often members of the RUC open fire, I do not know. It is one point which I am looking into as a matter of urgency. Obviously this is an aspect that I shall want to look at most closely.

Mr. McCusker: As the Member in whose constituency this disaster occurred,

may I associate myself with the expressions of sympathy which have come from the two Front Benches
Will not the right hon. Gentleman accept that this tragedy represents a situation which has concerned many of us in Northern Ireland regarding the breakdown in liaison and communication which seems frequently to occur between the Army and the RUC?
In the right hon. Gentleman's investigation, will he determine why these people were going from Market Hill to Newcastle via Mowhan? I have never heard an explanation like that, although there are some queer Irish directions given to some people about how to get from one place to another. But I am serious when I say that no one would go from Market Hill to Newcastle via Mowhan. What is more, Mowhan is an area sympathetic to the security forces. For that reason, the right hon. Gentleman should also determine why civilian vehicles were used.
Will the right hon. Gentleman state clearly that these members of the security forces were not masquerading as members of the UFF or any other subversive organisation That is one of the unfortunate rumours circulating at the moment.

Mr. Rees: If it is a rumour, it is wrong. I have stated the facts clearly. If the hon. Gentleman can help to squash the rumours, so much the better. He knows the geography of the area. There is no queer Irishism about it. The men were instructed to go that way by their superiors who had been informed of an obstruction on the direct road. There is not the slightest need to be funny about it, because it is not a funny matter. If the hon. Gentleman has plenty of examples of breakdown in liaison before, I shall expect to find them in the files at headquarters, because I am sure that he would not have awaited this occasion to make the allegations. If he has not made the allegations before, I ask him to let me have them quickly because I, or my predecessor, should have had them long before this.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Will the Secretary of State issue instructions today that all British Service men bearing arms in Northern Ireland in aid of the civil power shall do so wearing full uniform? Will


he also take note of the fact that so great is public disquiet in Great Britain at the loss of lives among Service men in Northern Ireland that nothing short of a full independent inquiry into this incident will satisfy British public opinion?

Mr. Rees: On the second point about public opinion on this matter, I assure my hon. Friend that the correct procedures are being followed. I will report back to the House. There is nothing to hide. However, I hope that he will take into account, from the fact that I used the words "the Director of Public Prosecutions", that we should be careful about the way in which we use the evidence that we have so far.
On my hon. Friend's point about only Service men in uniform bearing arms—I am not begging the other issue; there may be appropriate times for that to be raised—it has been thought proper, for example, that men arriving at Aldergrove coming off leave—there are 34,000 in a year—should go unarmed but in a bus or vehicle which has a weapon or weapons in it. They then go to their own units and are armed before going to subunits. Even at this stage, whatever might come out of the inquiry, there are occasions when it might be sensible for Service men not to be in uniform in Northern Ireland because they might be asking to be shot.

Captain Orr: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we sympathise with him that his first appearance at the Dispatch Box should be to give an account of so tragic an accident?
Will he please understand that the position in Ulster now appears to the general public to be of a deteriorating security situation, that this is one incident among many that gives rise to dangerous rumour and lack of public confidence, and that the best way of dispelling it would be to advise his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that we should have a debate on security in Ulster as soon as possible?

Mr. Rees: I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his words of welcome. I am aware that moods of depression go across the Province, which is a closely-knit community, very quickly. It was a very bad weekend and it has been a bad week. I cannot speak on behalf of my

right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but I hope that when the opportunity comes—I hope that it will be soon —we can debate the matter. It is my intention to put before the House the new administration's ideas on Northern Ireland, and the facts about the security situation are one aspect of them.

Mr. McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we on this side of the House also regret the fact that his first appearance at the Dispatch Box has to be in order to make such a sad statement?
Is he aware that we should like more precise information about when my right hon. Friend is likely to come to the House and publish his preliminary report on the findings in this matter? We all understand the legal difficulties, but some important questions must be answered. For example, how often is the RUC warned about the procedures relating to soldiers returning to their units? Does the RUC have a yellow card similar to that issued to the Army containing instructions on when and how to shoot? Why was there this tragic second happening after there had been the first? Why were not people more cautious and alert?
Obviously, there has been a breakdown in procedures and liaison between the two arms of the security forces. This is a matter of urgency to which attention should be paid in the security review.

Mr. Rees: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and thank him for his early words. I shall have to be very careful about the precise details as to what went on because of the legal implications involved. However, there are a number of other matters of procedure and liaison between the police and the Army on which I hope to be able to come back to the House at an early date. I am aware that one of my functions, as it was of my predecessor, is to bring before the House as much information on Northern Ireland as possible, not least because, except for a small band in this place, a large number of people choose to forget what goes on there. My predecessor and I cannot do that.

Mr. Beith: My right hon. and hon. Friends and I wish to be associated with the expressions of sympathy at this horrifying loss of life. We appreciate the


right hon. Gentleman's caution about going into detail at this time. Will he, in addition to the points that have already been made, consider whether these civilianised vehicles—the statement referred to a civilianised vehicle—should contain means of communication, which this vehicle appeared to lack and therefore necessitated journeys to a telephone box, and whether some coded identification could be developed which might help to avoid incidents of this kind?

Mr. Rees: The RUC vehicles had RT, but I understand that the Army civilianised vehicles had not. This is an important matter at which we must look. The question of identification is also important. Anyone who has had the remotest connection with the Services at different times knows that in a situation such as this, which is not a matter between a civilian and a military force but between military forces, when things go wrong identification is an important aspect.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this tragic accident underlines the extreme difficulties in every way facing the security forces in Northern Ireland? In view of an earlier incident affecting one of my constituents, Corporal Foxford, which is also sub judice, which concerned identification at night, may I ask him to investigate the fundamental issue whether military forces on duty on what amounts to active service should be liable to the civil courts in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Rees: The question posed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman is different. I am not denying that it is important. It will have to be looked at, but it is part of a wider aspect in the community. I assure him that I will look closely at it.

Mr. George Cunningham: I recognise that to avoid a repetition of this tragedy all changes in procedure will have to be looked at, but may I ask my right hon. Friend to be extremely reluctant about requiring all troops to be in uniform while armed? Does he recognise that this applies not only to their movements when joining their units, as in this instance, but even more so to troops in civilian clothes acting operationally? If we were to deny ourselves that facility in Northern

Ireland, we should be exposing ourselves to the risk of more innocent lives, not just protecting the troops.

Mr. Rees: I shall bear in mind the two points that my hon. Friend made. There will be occasions when the wider aspects can be discussed in the House.

Mr. Burden: May I impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the great concern that is felt about the ease with which a tragic incident can take place when men are on duty? Will he give careful consideration to the suggestion made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) about troops who, under great stress and difficulty, might seem to commit something that could be looked upon in a civil court as a crime but which, under military service, is an accident that it is difficult to avoid in such times of stress?

Mr. Rees: Yes. That is an important point. I have direct responsibilities in Northern Ireland, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, who is directly responsible for Service personnel, has listened to what has been said by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles).

Mr. Heath: The Secretary of State has told the House all that he feels he can communicate at this moment. However, I am sure he recognises that, by using the simple phrase "an encounter took place" on two occasions, he has not given us information as to how all this came about or how such a tragic loss of life occurred. I recognise from past experience the difficulties on the legal side, but will he bear in mind that we hope that it will prove possible for him to give the House further information on two questions: first, how such encounters come to take place and, secondly, what he and the military authorities are able to do, as a result of their investigations, to take greater precautions to prevent such incidents happening again?

Mr. Rees: I am grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for his understanding of my careful use of words, which is due to inquiries affecting this matter. He can rest assured that his points are very much in the front of my mind and that I am looking at them carefully. I had called for a full review of security procedures


only on the day before the incident, although at that time nothing so ghastly as what has taken place was in my mind.

Mr. Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be prudent for him to ensure that all routine patrols by the police force are in marked vehicles? According to my right hon. Friend's statement, unmarked patrol cars were involved on both occasions.
I wish to associate myself with the comments already made about the deep sense of loss and tragedy over this unfortunate incident. My remarks are concerned with trying to avoid a recurrence. My suggestion would not completely rule out the use of unmarked police cars because these would be special occasions, when presumably instructions would be given to the Army that such occasions were in force.

Mr. Rees: I assure my hon. Friend that I shall look at this point carefully. Developments of this nature have grown up over the past three or four years, often not due to a change of policy fought out in Ministries but arising out of practical experience, particularly in the border area. This may be a good reason to look at the matter carefully. However, I do not wish my hon. Friend to think that while I agree to look at this, his suggestion will necessarily be accepted.

Mr. Fry: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that these two incidents, following the sentencing of a British soldier for the shooting of a 12year-old boy, have unfortunately considerably aroused distress among not only relatives of British troops in Ulster but the population at large. Fears that the Army is being asked to perform an almost imposible task will have to be allayed if public opinion is to support the Government in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Rees: I hope that, in relation to his last point, the hon. Gentleman will take account of something which we have felt on this side. We made clear when in Opposition, that we were supporting the Government because we believed that they were going in the right direction, and it would be a pity if this were now forgotten in the confused situation here.

The hon. Gentleman referred to a case which is sub judice. As I have said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is directly responsible for Service personnel, but I have a direct responsibility in Northern Ireland for the use of troops.

Major-General d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his frank statement. I hope he will bear in mind a point which I believe will be agreed on both sides of the House, namely, that the Army has conducted this difficult business in Northern Ireland brilliantly. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in future decisions such as those on the wearing of plain clothes should be left for final determination by the military authorities, in conjunction with the civil authorities on the spot?

Mr. Rees: The hon and gallant Gentleman will appreciate that I am new to my post, but there are others present who were involved in past decisions—that is precisely the way that policy has arisen in the past. I agree that the man on the spot understands the situation, but this House has a responsibility. We firmly support the rôle of the Army and the security forces, but the best day will be when the Army is no longer asked to aid the civilian power. Policing is best done by the police themselves. This is the aim of the Government.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR MONDAY 8TH APRIL

Members successful in the Ballot were:

Mr. F. Evans.

Mr. Speaker: I wish that when hon. Members sign the book they would do so legibly. I do not know whether the next name is that of Mr. Christopher Mayhew, Sir Anthony Meyer or someone else. We shall announce the name of the hon. Member for No. 30 after we have brought in a handwriting expert.
I now understand that the name is that of Sir Anthony Meyer.

Sir Anthony Meyer.

Mr. Marks.

BILL PRESENTED

HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK ETC.

Mr. Secretary Foot, supported by Mr. Secretary Jenkins, Mrs. Secretary Castle, Mr. Secretary Crosland, Mr. Secretary Ross, Mr. Fred Peart, Mr. Secretary John Morris, Mr. Edmund Dell, and Mr. Harold Walker, presented a Bill to make further provision for securing the health, safety and welfare of persons at work, for protecting others against risks to health or safety in connection with the activities of persons at work, for controlling the keeping and use and preventing the unlawful acquisition, possession and use of dangerous substances, and for controlling certain emissions into the atmosphere; to make further provisions with respect to the employment medical advisory service; to amend the law relating to building regulations, and the Building (Scotland) Act 1959; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 6.]

WELSH AFFAIRS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Coleman.]

4.26 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Morris): Anyone called to hold the office of Secretary of State for Wales must be deeply conscious of the honour of serving his nation in this way. I certainly am. Each Secretary of State has made a distinct and valued contribution to the life of Wales, and I pay particular tribute to the three of my distinguished predecessors who are in the House. The only assurance I can give is that, like them, I shall seek to act in the interests of the whole of Wales and not of a section of it, and I shall try in all my deeds to be guided by this principle.
I know that I speak for all my colleagues in Wales in congratulating the Chairman of Ways and Means upon his appointment. I know that he is now impartial, but he has led the Welsh Labour group with unparalleled zeal and drive for many years.
The House will want to know the balance sheet as I found it at the Welsh Office. In view of the reputation of my native county, the House will not be surprised that I took an immediate interest in the state of the books.
Having outlined this backcloth, it would be right for me then to outline the recent and current employment situation in Wales. Nothing is more important than the fundamental human right to work, and Governments must intervene where necessary to ensure that that right can be exercised in Wales itself.
I shall seek then to deal with some aspects of the condition of life in Wales. So varied and wide are my responsibilities that the House will forgive me if I do not cover all topics. To do so would be to deprive some hon. Members of the opportunity of catching your eye Mr. Speaker, and my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands), one of the Under-Secretaries in my Department, who will seek to wind up, will repair some of my omissions.
Lastly, I shall spell out in some detail how I view the constitutional development of Wales and how we will seek to


implement the proposals which the people of Wales endorsed at the last election.
First, I turn to the books. The House will recall the severe public expenditure cuts announced by the last Government on 17th December. Capital expenditure was to be cut by 20 per cent. and procurement of goods and services by 10 per cent. Other than housing, each of the main fields of expenditure suffered a cut on its programmes for 1974–5.
It is right for us to look at these at the beginning of our endeavours. Expenditure on roads and transport was cut by £11.6 million, equal to 15 per cent. Spending on other environmental services was cut by £8·9 million, equal to 12 per cent., while expenditure on education, libraries, science and arts was cut by £6 million, representing a reduction of 4 per cent. Health and personal social services expenditure was cut by £5·5 million—equal to 3 per cent. These cuts amounted in total to £32 million—or 6·8 per cent.—of Welsh Office programmes excluding housing.
One cannot minimise the effects of these cuts. Undoubtedly we are in a serious economic situation, and, while I cannot anticipate the Budget, it is obvious that these cuts cannot now be reversed. But to all my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite who, I am sure, would in the course of the year be making this and that suggestion for expenditure, I cannot help but underline the extent of the deferment of many valuable plans which has, and will, take place.
The economy of Wales is inextricably linked to the health of the rest of the United Kingdom economy. Anyone who advocates separatism is living in cloudcuckoo-land. Offa's Dyke has no economic relevance in the economic life of Wales.
The blunt truth is that the United Kingdom's economy—and the economy of Wales as part of the wider scheme—certainly has suffered recently, both as a result of the energy crisis and as a result of the previous Government's handling of industrial relations and other aspects of economic affairs.
My aim is to see that Wales is able to play its part to the full in the recovery operation. Unless Britain recovers, Wales will not prosper. It is obvious, therefore, that we must concentrate on our coal and

steel resources, which not only provide over 100,000 jobs for men in Wales—one man in six in Wales is employed by the British Steel Corporation or the National Coal Board—but contribute in large measure to the strength of the United Kingdom economy. Beyond coal and steel, we must look to the further resource, oil or gas, which we hope will eventually come from the Celtic Sea.
Our overriding priority must, therefore, be to restore the strength of our economy, and we must continue to reduce the imbalance between Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom—indeed, our aim must be to eliminate it. I am particularly conscious here of the problems of such areas as North-West Wales, parts of Pembrokeshire and parts of the valleys such as Bargoed, to name but a few.
I should like to deal first with the economic situation bequeathed to us—an unwelcome legacy if ever there was one. Let us look first at unemployment.
It has been said many times by the Conservative Party that when it took office in June 1970 it inherited a deteriorating unemployment situation. The fact is, however, that from June 1970 till December 1970 the unemployment situation in Wales was remarkably stable, with the seasonally adjusted rate fluctuating only slightly between 3·6 and 3·8 per cent.
It was not until 1971, after six months of Tory Government, that the situation took a marked turn for the worse. Between December 1970 and April 1971, the seasonally adjusted rate increased steadily from 3·8 to 4·4 per cent. For the next three months it was static at 4·4 per cent., but it then rose steadily again to reach 5 per cent. by the end of 1971.
But even worse was to follow. In January 1972 it was 5·2 per cent.; in February 5·3 per cent.; in March 5·3 per cent., and in April 5·2 per cent. The record needs to be spelled out. As the House knows, an overall unemployment rate of 5 Der cent. means a male rate in excess of 6 per cent. Throughout the winter of 1971–72 the numbers unemployed exceeded 50,000, reaching a peak of nearly 56,000 in January 1972.
This deterioration was not due to some act of God. It was directly attributable to the policies of the last Government—


in particular, their ill-fated decision to abolish the well-tried and successful policy of investment grants. We said at the time that it was a disastrous decision. Sadly, events proved how right we were, and the people of Wales suffered.
Like Saul on the road to Damascus, the last Government saw a blinding light, and in the spring of 1972 they reintroduced investment grants—although in an attempt to cover up their past folly they now called them regional development grants. Saul was re-named Paul.
With the application of this erstwhile Labour Government policy, and a flat-out race for economic growth, the situation in Wales started to improve, although it was not until late autumn 1972 that the seasonally adjusted rate dropped below 4·8 per cent. It continued to improve through most of 1973 with unemployment falling and the number of unfilled vacancies rising.
Even so, the writing was on the wall as the economy lost impetus and the boom spluttered to stagnation. This happened before the cut-back in oil supplies, before the miners' overtime ban, before the increase in oil prices, and before the full horror of the balance of payments situation was revealed.
In Wales it manifested itself in a sharp decline in the number of unfilled vacancies, and in a reversal in the downward unemployment trend, quickly followed by the grave effects of the energy crisis, which, in turn, was exacerbated by the Government's handling of the industrial relations situation.
All in all, it is a story of stupid changes in policy in 1970–71, a serious deterioration in unemployment, a death-bed conversion in 1972, an improvement in the unemployment situation in late 1972 and for the first three quarters of 1973, and then the deluge. One can only have wished that this was a nightmare, not the reality.
The publication earlier today of this month's unemployment figures only serves to underline the difficulties. Once again, they show an increase in the seasonally adjusted rate—from 3·4 per cent. in February to 3·6 per cent. now. In three short months, the rate has climbed sharply from 3·0 per cent. to 3·6 per cent.
The seeds of deterioration have been planted by our predecessors. We are faced now with the task of repairing the damage where this is a continuing threat to employment as a result of the traumatic experience industry has gone through in the last few months. It will not be easy, and it is only right to say that the prospect of a continuing deterioration in the unemployment position before we can pull the situation round is a very real one indeed. The damage of the past will take time to repair.
Turning to particular industries, the House will, I think, consider it appropriate that I should refer first to the steel industry. I do so with pride, having had the honour to represent one of the great steelmaking centres of Europe in this House for over 14 years.
Wales's importance was recognised in the British Steel Corporation's long-term investment strategy, which was made public over a year ago. There was much for Wales to welcome in that strategy. But there was also much which caused grave concern—the proposed closures at Cardiff, Ebbw Vale and Shotton, with the loss of thousands of jobs.
Our manifesto for Wales promised that Labour would halt these closures and undertake an immediate review of targets for the steel industry with the future viability of these works in mind. I can assure the House that this commitment will be carried out. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry has already informed the Chairman of the British Steel Corporation that he will be carrying out a review of proposed closures of steel plants by the corporation arising out of planned developments as agreed with the last Government—although, as he made clear in the House on 18th March, without interfering with the present investment programme. In pursuance of this my right hon. Friend has asked Dr. Finniston to withhold any decisions or announcements on any individual closures until he has had the opportunity to review the case for them, after consultation in each case with the prinicipal trade unions and local authorities.
To remove any doubt in hon. Members' minds, I would make it clear that this request to Dr. Finniston extends to the closures at Ebbw Vale and East Moors, which have been confirmed by


the corporation, as well as to those where consultation is still proceeding, such as Shotton. My Department will, of course, be closely involved in the review which is to be made.
I come to the question of coal. The first task facing the Government on taking office was to settle the coal dispute. We did so, and we got Britain back to work. The pundits of Reigate, Surbiton and Sidcup can say what they like about the attractions of the coal industry. The truth of the matter is that the miners were voting with their feet. In 1973, for example, there was a net loss of nearly 3,300 in the industry's labour force in Wales. All the signs now are that confidence is returning to the industry. Before the recent strike there were about 1,500 unfilled vacancies in Wales. The NCB has announced today that last week there were over 800 applicants in South Wales, which it has described as the biggest rush of applicants for a decade. The Welsh part of the industry will be a major factor in the Government's urgent examination of the future of the coal industry.
Let me turn now to the subject of Celtic Sea oil. As the House knows, drilling for oil or gas is now under way in the Celtic Sea. This initial programme will bring much-needed new employment, particularly to South-West Wales. But that is only a start. If there is oil or gas in the Celtic Sea in commercial quantities it needs to be exploited as rapidly as possible and on terms which will confer maximum benefit on the community.
It is vital that we do not repeat in Wales the errors of the first Industrial Revolution. We do not want our wealth to be exploited in such a way that Wales misses out on the higher-level and more congenial work. We must ensure that the education system is so geared that the young people of Wales have the maximum opportunities to exploit their skills, training and talents in the sophisticated industries ancillary to the oil industry itself.
Remembering the physical scars of the first Industrial Revolution, I hope that we shall be able to exploit any new discoveries so that there is the minimum damage to the environment. Our aim must be to reconcile or avoid potential conflicts between developmental and en-

vironmental considerations in a way that combines practicality and sensitivity in right proportions.
There is considerable interest in the organisation of administrative work related to the Celtic Sea development. The right hon. and learned Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas) raised the matter on Monday. I am considering several ways in which existing arrangements might be developed or altered. I have not yet come to a decision, but I am in no doubt that as the demands for the exploration work change and increase there will need to be a development in the means by which the Government oversee the work and bring their influence to bear.

Mr. Gwynoro Jones: Mr. Gwynoro Jones (Carmarthen) rose——

Mr. Morris: I am most generous in giving way to my hon. Friends and hon. Members, but I have a long way to go, and if I give way again I shall only be cutting other hon. Members out of the debate.
The most recent decision affecting the economic and social life of South Wales has been the decision not to proceed with the proposed Llantrisant New Town. We welcome that decision, but we are determined that it should not be seen as a negative one. Rather it must now become a renewal of our commitment to enhance and develop the existing communities which have shown a remarkable resilience and a greater potential for industrial development than was thought possible some years ago. I make that commitment this afternoon.
I want to work closely with all the local authorities in the post-Llantrisant situation, though without in any way taking over their responsibilities. I also wish to make clear that we realise the urgent need to plan properly and effectively the natural growth in the Llantrisant area. We shall give full support to planning initiatives to ensure that this will be done.
I turn now to Mid-Wales. With my roots in Mid-Wales, I am happy to be able to point to the more encouraging trends which are now apparent in some respects, as I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman did on Monday. We are now—hopefully—seeing the beginning


of the reversal of depopulation. Substantial progress has been made at Newtown, where the Mid-Wales Development Corporation set up by the last Labour Government is working towards a doubling of the town's population. Progress elsewhere has perhaps been less spectacular, but by no means insignificant.
The last Labour Government initiated a policy of concentrating development in six other growth towns in Mid-Wales, and this policy was endorsed by the succeeding administration. A number of manufacturing firms have moved to these towns in recent years, and this has contributed to the improvement in population trends. What is not clear is whether this improvement has been brought about by a reduction in the drift of population from the area or an increase in the movement of people into the area.
If this healthier trend is to last, we must maintain the momentum of development. I intend to see that this is done, and I am therefore particularly glad today to announce two significant new developments. First, the vacant Development Commission advance factory at Rhayader has been allocated to Silent Channel Products Ltd. of Huntingdon, which manufactures components for the motor industry. Twenty jobs will be created in the first year of operation, and 40 jobs should be provided by the end of 1976. The company also has a factory at Maesteg, but there will be no reduction of the labour force there as a result of this move to Rhayader. Secondly, under the Development Commission's main programme of advance factory building in Mid-Wales, a new 10,000 sq. ft. factory is to be built at Aberystwyth.
The continued development of the towns of Mid-Wales is essential if the depopulation of this area—with all its economic, social and cultural implications —is to be reversed not just last year or the year before, but for good. The policy of concentrating industrial investment in a comparatively small number of attractive locations is, I believe, right. The major question still outstanding, however, is how to translate all our hopes and aspirations for the area into action. We said in our manifesto for Wales that a Development Board was needed to coordinate the activities of all existing agencies in Mid-Wales and rural Wales.
I am anxious to make progress in co-ordinating the strategy for Mid-Wales and hope to begin the task of providing the tools for the job in the way of effective corporate machinery for the area.
In all five of the Mid-Wales counties no locality causes me greater concern than Blaenau Ffestiniog—a town with a proud industrial and cultural record—which I hope to visit shortly. It is a town, too, which has suffered more than most towns in Wales from the twin evils of depopulation and unemployment. The number of persons unemployed may not be large in comparison with many other parts of Wales, but the unemployment rate is totally unacceptable to me. I am determined to do everything within my power to tackle the problems of Blaenau. In particular, I am lending my full weight to the determined efforts now being made by the Department of Industry to find a tenant for the vacant Government factory. Naturally, I warmly welcome the announcement earlier this week that a company from Colwyn Bay has decided to establish a unit in the town.
I turn now to agriculture. I think it was an hon. Gentleman opposite—the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells), who is not here today—who urged upon his electors the need for a Minister of State for Welsh Agriculture with, I believe, a seat in the Cabinet. With my roots so firmly embedded in the industry, I hope that when he reads my speech in due course, as I hope he will, he will not mind my asking him to remind his electors that I share this responsibility with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and that I am not a Minister of State. I am proud to be the Secretary of State, and that there are at least two voices to safeguard Welsh Agriculture in the Cabinet.
I attach a great deal of importance to the future development and prosperity of Welsh agriculture. There is understandably, very considerable concern in Wales at present about the future of some sectors, which have had to bear mounting costs of animal feed, fertilisers and other essential supplies. I recognise, therefore, that this is a worrying time for Welsh farmers, and I have not to go far in my immediate family to be reminded quite sharply of the industry's problems. I also hope to take an early opportunity of


meeting the representatives of the industry in Wales, and I am confident that they will convey to me their concern about many aspects of farming in Wales.
I now come to the question of roads. It is not my intention today to weary the House by cataloguing a whole host of road improvements now going on and to be commenced in Wales. My hon. Friend will deal with any particular queries. What I must say is that we have a long way to go in building an effective road pattern in Wales. It is regrettable that the original date of completion of 1976 for the M4 has slipped. I regard it as vital for South Wales that this essential artery is completed as early as possible, and I also attach importance to overcoming the social and engineering problems of bringing Gwynedd, where the unemployment rate is intolerably high, and the whole North Wales coast closer in the transport time scale to the border.
In all these matters, as previous Secretaries of State have been deeply aware, there is a dilemma. The rights of objectors have to be protected. But far too frequently—I say this with the utmost earnestness—the voice of beneficiaries further along the line of major road improvements goes unheard. If we want to get on with the badly needed improved road pattern in Wales, supporters as well as objectors—I have been an objector myself, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows—must stand up and be counted. That is a message I sent out, and I hope that I shall be supported on both sides of the House.
The county councils have a new role in the comprehensive development of transport in their areas. My Office will be available to give them positive support in the integrated development of cornmunications and services in their areas.
I should like to deal briefly with the question of housing. In the housing field, as in many others, we have inherited an uncomfortable situation. The Government are reviewing all the issues in order to determine priorities. As a first step. I made orders under the Counter-Inflation Act 1973 freezing all residential rents for the remainder of 1974 in Wales. There are in Wales some 280,000 council tenants and 150,000 private tenants. This is a significant contribution to holding down prices.
The major problem which confronts us is the need for more homes for our people. Waiting lists in Wales total nearly 40,000. Every hon. Member in Wales knows that the topic which occurs most frequently in his constituency work is that of housing. Yet the number of houses completed in Wales in 1973–3,377 in the public sector and 10,957 in the private sector—was the lowest since the end of the war. The number fell steadily year by year during the last Government's tenure of office. By 1973 the public sector figure had dropped to half what it was when they took office in 1970. But the fall was masked by their device of lumping together the public and the private sector figures. Now that the private sector building programme has ground to a halt, this cover is no longer available and the inadequacy of the public sector results is left fully exposed.
Clearly, this problem must be given the highest priority. We shall devote our attention and energies to reviving the house building programme. We shall encourage local authorities to press forward with programmes, and we shall do our utmost to provide the means. While local authorities are reviving their building programmes, we shall look again at the problem of maintaining existing housing in the short term. Clearance of unfit accommodation may be very necessary in itself, but we must have regard to the need to rehouse those displaced. Until accommodation is available to receive them, clearance merely aggravates the situation.
I am inviting the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil, to use all his energies for the housing drive that is so badly needed in Wales. Local government reorganisation in Wales sets up 37 new housing authorities from 1st April next in place of the existing 169 authorities. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is planning to meet all the new authorities as soon as possible to encourage them to tackle their plans realistically and to discuss with them what help we can give to ensure that there is again a real move forward in house building.
In the rural areas we shall give every encouragement to housing authorities in Wales to purchase homes which might otherwise become derelict and to make them available to meet housing needs in


their areas—as a number of authorities have done very successfully in the past. We are also committed to put a stop to the giving of improvement grants for second homes.
I turn now to the question of education and the Welsh language. There is only one aspect of education, a subject which we are passionately concerned with in Wales, that I have time to deal with. The cut-back of nearly £4 million in capital expenditure on schools in 1974–75 resulted in the deferment of a start on the building of some 70 replacements for pre-1903 primary schools. Since Wales has such a high proportion of very old school buildings, the delay in their replacement represented a severe blow to the Principality. I am now considering reinstating in this year's starts programme —within available resources—some of the more urgent deferred projects.
The Welsh language is a brilliant gem in our inheritance. It enriches the Welsh-speaking Welshman and the non-Welshspeaking Welshman. It is part of all our backgrounds. We would all be the poorer without it. In an age when so many of us are becoming increasingly concerned with our enviroment, I have said before that to be passionate about the physical heritage and to be unconcerned about the language as the basic ingredient of the distinct cultural way of life of so many of us would be the act of a political schizophrenic.
There is a crisis in the history of the language. There is cause for concern in the further decline in the number of Welsh speakers revealed by the last census. But, on the other hand, there are encouraging signs, too, that a large number of people of all age groups are constructively setting about safeguarding the future of the language and that new methods and techniques in education are bearing fruit. I publicly supported the action of my predecessor the right hon. and learned Member for Hendon, South in setting up the Welsh Language Council as an important step in the right direction. There is much work to be done, and we shall be looking to the council for advice as it pursues its task. I shall be seeing the chairman very shortly so that I may review the progress of the council to date.
Lastly, I am sure to the relief of many hon. Members who wish to catch your

eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I turn to the question of devolution. In Wales a great deal of interest has been focused on the Report of the Royal Commission on the Constitution. This is not surprising, since the question of devolution to Wales has been the subject of sometimes heated discussion and argument in Welsh political circles for the best part of a century.
The party to which I belong—and we are the party of the majority of the people of Wales—has every reason to be proud of its record in this matter. Ever since the war, we have taken progressive action to ensure that the special interests and needs of Wales are taken fully into account in the processes of government. Among other steps, we established the Council for Wales and Monmouthshire in 1949, and it was we who established the Welsh Office, under its first Secretary of State, Mr. James Griffiths, in 1964. I am sure the whole House will join me in sending our good wishes to Mr. Griffiths. We set up the Commission on the Constitution in 1969, and in opposition we continued to press for increased democratic control by Wales over its own affairs.
Following the publication of the Kilbrandon Report, the Welsh Labour Group, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) reminded the House last night, put in hand a thoroughgoing study of its findings, and the trend of our thinking was made clear before the election. Our declared aim is to arrive at positive and constructive proposals which will win wide assent. I must pay tribute to the work of analysis that was done by the commission, but it then threw the ball back into the politicians' court for decision, where responsibility for action lies.
I noted with interest the comment of the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) in Monday's debate that my reply
has confirmed our gravest fears that the Government's filibustering approach to the matter will do Wales a grave disservice".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March 1974; Vol. 870, c. 755.]
The most charitable thing I can say about the hon. Gentleman's comment is that he must have written his speech notes on the train before he even heard my reply. What I said about consultation was that these matters would be discussed with great urgency so that we could bring proposals before the House at the earliest


possible moment. Unless filibustering has a different meaning from my understanding of it, I cannot conceivably understand how the hon. Gentleman could have reached his conclusion. Anyone with the slightest spark of knowledge of how the machinery of Government works would have understood the words in the Queen's Speech.
It is now only right, if we are not to emulate the methods of authoritarian regimes, that interested parties should have the opportunity of stating and restating their views in the light of the Kilbrandon Report. Discussion now needs to be focused on the various options referred to in the report and in the memorandum of dissent. That will sharpen all our minds, and organisations in ales will be invited to focus their attention on those points. The consultations will be taking place in Wales, and I shall keep in close touch with their progress.
The House has been told of the appointment of Lord Crowther-Hunt to assist the Government and to be available to all who wish to confer with him. The consultations to which I have referred will not slow down the urgency with which the Government are buckling down to prepare their proposals.
I believe that the Labour Party in Wales gave very valuable evidence to the Royal Commission. I believe that there is a great deal of endorsement in the Kilbi andon Report to our observations.
In our Welsh manifesto we referred to the need for a directly elected body in Wales with the functions, power and finance to enable it to be an effective democratic force in Wales.
What is important is to begin this work, and to set up a body that will be a developing instrument, its powers being shaped in the light of experience and the democratic needs and aspirations of the people of Wales.
Let us get on with the work. I look forward to the production of a White Paper as soon as possible setting out the Government's intentions, to be followed by the introduction of the legislation necessary to give effect to them. I am sure that, while we could not hope to satisfy everyone, our proposals will be

welcomed by the overwhelming majority of the people of Wales
This debate comes early in my tenure at the Welsh Office and in the life of the Government. In the months that lie ahead, I hope to grapple with the many problems that beset our nation.
I have found on taking office—and I am deeply gratified—an immense fund of good will right across Wales. Our history as a nation is studded with the divisions within our nation. It would be foolish to believe they would disappear.
My aim will be to seek the co-operation of every person of good will in Wales, to seek to unite rather than to tear apart, and to engineer the use of all the talents of our nation so that there is a fuller and better life for Wales as a whole.

5.7 p.m.

Mr. Peter Thomas,: I have already had the opportunity of congratulating the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues on their appointment to the Welsh Office. I do so gladly again and wish them well in their tenure of office. I congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman also on his speech today. It was a speech of fluency and power, and, apart from one or two passages where I think he felt impelled to make some political observations and comments, I should agree with much of what he had to say.
I join the right hon. and learned Gentleman in paying tribute to those who were his predecessors in office—apart from myself of course. I found that each person who occupied the high office which he now occupies certainly had the wish to do his best for Wales and for the Welsh people.
I am sure that it would be acceptable to welcome to the Front Bench my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards), who would wish, if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to make a few observations on behalf of the Opposition at the end of the debate. I also see my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt), and I should like to pay a personal tribute to him. I could not have wished for a better supporter in the Welsh Office during my three and a half years as Secretary of State for Wales. I know that the House will be glad to see that his health appears


to be well recovered. I thank him for his assistance during those most interesting years.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked, I thought with probably lessened pride, about his party being the party of the majority in Wales. That is strictly true: the majority has of course lessened, and it is interesting to see on the Opposition side of the House aditional Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Grist) and the two hon. Members who represent Plaid Cymru, whom we welcome to a Welsh debate. It is also interesting to see that the numbers on this side for the first time in my 23 years' experience apparently equal those on the Labour side.
I was interested by the construction of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech, how he felt that it was important to refer to the balance sheet and to look at the state of the books—which one expects when a person takes over for the first time. He said that he will seek to act in the interests of the whole of Wales. I do not doubt that. I have known the right hon. and learned Gentleman for many years and I know that he will try to do precisely what he said—to unite the Welsh people and to gain their co-operation. In this he will have the assistance of loyal and excellent officials.
I found his interpretation of the employment situation somewhat interesting. I would have put it a little differently. In order to paint a picture of the Welsh employment situation, I would have said that it was remarkable that in December 1973, not usually a month of the highest employment figures, unemployment in Wales was at its lowest for nine years. I would also have said that in December 1973 unfilled job vacancies in Wales were the highest for 20 years.
It seemed a good opportunity for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to point out to the House, and to have it on record as he plainly wished, that since 1970 industrial output in Wales had risen by 12·5 per cent. and in the manufacturing sector by more than 15 per cent. and that in 1972 it increased at double the United Kingdom rate. Last year alone, despite the problems of the latter

part of the year, it rose by nearly 7 per cent.
The year 1973 was the first full year of operation of the Industry Act 1972. The response to that Act was tremendous and it is worth mentioning. In 1973, inquiries and visits by industrialists in Wales were twice as many as in the previous year. In 1972, they were almost double the level of 1971. So far, about 300 applications have been made for selective financial assistance, and the offers of grants which have been made under selective financial assistance in over 100 cases amount to £8·5 million, providing about 8,700 new jobs. In the industrial and service sectors, there are about 27,000 new jobs in prospect in Wales.
Another important matter, which, I think, should have been referred to is that we have over the years had a longstanding trend of loss of population through migration, but this has now been reversed, and net inward migration into Wales is mounting.
I should have liked to put the picture differently. I would say that Wales was rapidly becoming one of the most exciting and most promising regions of the European Community, and that this was rapidly being recognised in Europe, in the United States of America, in Japan and elsewhere. [Interruption.] I hear the Under-Secretary say something. He will know of the investment which is being made in his constituency of Merthyr by an American firm. He will know, too, of how in Ebbw Vale a European firm, Alfred Teves, is investing. They could have taken any part of Europe, but they decided to come to Wales. In the same way, we have had Sony and Takiron from Japan. I found during the latter part of my period as Secretary of State for Wales that the response and the interest in Wales was enormous.
This did not come about by accident. The right hon. and learned Gentleman took us through the difficult periods that we had at the end of 1970 and 1971. When I was Secretary of State, sitting in his place, I must admit that I was frequently saddened by some hon. and right hon. Members who appeared to revel in painting a gloomy picture of Wales by decrying our prospects, by exaggerating our problems and by minimising our successes.
During the time to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred, we sufferred from those attacks, but we had a job to do and we got on with the job. Starting from the base in 1970 which the right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned—I still maintain that there was an underlying rising level of unemployment, and there was certainly a stagnant economy and a crisis of confidence in business—in the course of our three and a half years in office we gave priority and new, indeed, unprecedented, resources to communications, to infrastucture and to the environment.
We made the whole of Wales an assisted area. We made the whole of the South Wales coalfield a special development area. We pledged massive investment in coal and steel. We passed the Industry Act in 1972 which, together with the Finance Act of 1972, not only stimulated industrial activity throughout the United Kingdom but was regarded as being the most effective Act for regional regeneration ever. In effect, what we did was to reintroduce growth into the economy, and Wales benefited probably more than any other part of the United Kingdom.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked about regional imbalance. It is true that for far too long Wales has suffered from the problem of regional imbalance. For years our aim has been to try to reach that goal of parity with the rest of the United Kingdom, but it is a goal which has eluded us for a long time. At the end of last year, however, there were indications that the problem was on the way to being solved. With that picture in mind, it is sad that the fuel and world price crises, together with the coincidence of industrial disputes, reduced our momentum and postponed many of our hopes.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked about problems. Of course we have problems. We have been discussing those problems during the past few weeks, not only in the House but in the country. We have suffered setbacks because of those problems, but I believe that they can and will be overcome. Wales is in a better condition than at any time since the war to face the difficulties and, in due course, to continue its progress at a fast rate. The right hon and learned Gentleman has, he will find

when he looks at the books again, been left a soundly based foundation for progress on which to build.
In the right climate of growth, with a fair tax system and continuation of our regional policy, Wales has great potentiality to attract investment, particularly from overseas. How Wales will fare depends on how policies emerge and, of course, much will depend on the Budget which we shall hear about next week.
I express the hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will seek to dissuade his Cabinet colleagues from introducing measures that will weaken that potentiality in Wales. Threats and suggestions of nationalisation, vague proposals such as a "national enterprise board"—which to any industrialist would imply interference with and regimentation of private industry—are very damaging to the prospect of investment, and, when connected to the prospect of oil and gas in the Celtic Sea, they are immensely damaging to the future of Wales.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned that when the Government first came to office their first task was—I use his words—to "settle the miners' strike and get Britain back to work". A settlement was achieved which occasioned a certain amount of relief in the country, and there is no doubt that people were glad of the opportunity to get down to a full week's work. When one thinks of the settlement in cash terms, there is very little cash difference between the relative pay offer and the settlement—which one could call the settlement of the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot). On basic rates, surface workers received slightly more, coal face workers, slightly less and underground workers about the same. In terms of cash, the strike was absolutely unnecessary.

Mr. Alec Jones: Tell the miners that, for the right hon. Gentleman started it.

Mr. Thomas: The offer of payments on Pay Board relativity recommendation, and backdated to 1st March, was made and the strike need never have taken place. In the course of time, I believe that the Government and the miners will have reason to regret that the settlement was not a relative pay settlement. If it had been, it would have been an integral part of an ordered framework for dealing


with special cases within the wider context of a counter-inflationary policy.
But the settlement to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred with pride, is an ad hoc settlement, carried out as part of a much-publicised rejection of a counter-inflation policy. The relative pay report played no formal part in the negotiations. The National Union of Mineworkers and the National Coal Board were, in effect, given a blank cheque. Therefore, the difference between a relativity pay settlement and the actual settlement is not a difference in cash; it is a difference in principle. The practical consequences of this will increasingly emerge as various wage groups press their claims.
Already workers such as the chemical workers and the Post Office workers are reacting to that form of settlement, for the nature of the settlement outside relative pay gives wage demands an entirely new impetus. Therefore, I fear that the Government will regret that the settlement was made on an ad hoc basis and not on a Pay Board relativities award.
The miners themselves may well suffer, since one of the basic aims of a relative pay settlement was to ensure that the improvement to the miners' position in the wages league table would be a lasting one. There are many industries with the muscle of the miners, and in a wages free for-all, which I hope we shall not reach, the miners' new position could be quickly eroded.
Meanwhile, the effect of the settlement is that there is to be a substantial rise in the price of coal. A 48 per cent. increase for industrial users has already been announced. We accept that this has to be met because it was a necessary payment for a special case, but if it becomes contagious the serious inflationary effect is obvious.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked about housing and an unhappy inheritance. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of the freezing of house rents, he mentioned that there were 280,000 tenants in Wales. He did not refer to the 98,000 in Wales who are receiving rebates under the Housing Finance Act. There are many problems—the current problem of high interest rates, the effect of over-heating in the building

industry in 1973, shortages and the cost of building materials and labour.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned the completion of houses in 1973. It is a matter of interest that, despite the many problems faced in 1973, there was an increase over 1972 in private house completions. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman concentrated on the public sector house building. It is a matter of which the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Rowlands) is fully aware. When one talks of completions of housing, one means the completion of a house which was planned and approved probably three years before. The hon. Gentleman was fully aware of that when he was Under-Secretary in the Welsh Office. He will also remember my hon. Friend quoting something he said at that time.
It would, I believe, have been of assistance to the House if the right hon. and learned Gentleman had talked about the future by quoting what are the approvals at tender stage. The approvals at tender stage for local authority house building programmes in 1973 were two and a half times the number for 1972 and, in fact, the highest figure since 1969. We can, therefore, look forward to a period of increasing housing supply.
I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, if he is in office at that time, will pay tribute to the fact that the decisions were taken in 1973, in the same way that the decisions which were taken by local authorities in 1968 and 1969 produced the completions figures which we had three or more years later.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Edward Rowlands): Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us how he sees the private house sector proceeding this year in Wales?

Mr. Thomas: Yes. I mentioned at the beginning that we have problems of high interest rates, over-heating in the building industry, and shortages and cost of building materials and labour. These all make a difference to any prognostication. It depends greatly on what the Government do in respect of building land. It may be that they will dry up the whole supply of building land by threatening to nationalise such land. These are things which I cannot anticipate until I hear a little more about the


policies which the Government propose to put forward.
I was interested to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman talk about the improvement of housing. The effect of the 1971 Act which the Conservative Government introduced was unprecedented in Wales. Nearly 60,000 houses have been improved in the past two years. I should have thought that that was worthy of mention.
Up to 1970, grants for house improvements held steady at between 7,000 and 8,000 a year. In 1972 they were 28,000 —that is four times as many—and in 1973 they were over 31,000. I should have thought that in presenting the housing picture for Wales the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have considered that a matter of importance and interest.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman will probably be under pressure from his right hon. and learned Friends to extend the 1971 Act. If he were able to do so I personally would greatly welcome it. It may be that he will find it something worth looking at. He will recollect that we were moving on to a more coherent long-term policy in respect of old housing, and I know that he will have read the White Paper which came out at the beginning of this year and, indeed, studied with great care the Housing and Planning Bill which was before the House before the dissolution of Parliament.
The Conservative Government felt that it was better to concentrate resources on those areas of special need rather than apply them indiscriminately and less effectively over much wider areas. I shall, however, be glad to hear what are the Government's plans for housing. If their plans are such that the housing situation in Wales can be improved, they can be certain of our support.
I wish to mention Kilbrandon—or, rather, devolution. I agree with the Secretary of State that it is absolutely right that there should be discussion and consultation. It would be wholly wrong for a new Government to take a decision in the light of this report which is an extremely complicated one—there are, I believe, five sets of proposals affecting Wales encompassed in it—and I believe it only right that there should be further

discussion and consultation and that this should not be too hurried.
The majority report—that is, the report of six people—recommended the reduction of the number of Welsh MPs at Westminster and the end of the office of the Secretary of State for Wales. I listened to the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President winding up the debate on 18th March. He was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) whether he could give two quick assurances. The first was whether he rejected the Kilbrandon proposals that the office of Secretary of State for Scotland should be abolished and that the number of Scottish Members of Parliament should he reduced.
The right hon. Gentleman said:
certainly we should wish to retain the Secretary of State for Scotland and certainly we would not wish to see the number of Members of Parliament from Scotland and Wales to the House reduced."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March 1974; Vol. 870, c. 800.]
This was an important statement which appears to have escaped people's notice. First, the Secretary of State referred to Wales with respect to the number of Members it would send to the House. He firmly stated that he would wish to retain the Secretary of State for Scotland. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman, or one of his hon. Friends in replying, could let the House know whether that applies equally to Wales. We in Wales would like to know whether it is the wish of the Government to retain the Secretary of State for Wales.

Mr. John Morris: I can immediately put the right hon. and learned Gentleman out of his misery. There will be no difference between Wales and Scotland. My right hon. Friend was asked the question by a Scottish Member. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman uses the phrase "We in Wales", the House will have fresh in its mind that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has failed to find a seat in Wales for many years.

Mr. Thomas: I must say that I am rather horrified that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who is fresh to his office, should have to cling to the old taunts put forward during his years of Opposition. I had expected him to have acquired a little added dignity and possibly extra humour. I am glad that he


has confirmed the statement that the Government wish to retain the Secretary of State for Wales and for that reason reject the majority recommendation of Kilbrandon.
I will put another question in that case, because the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not answer it at Question Time the other day. We can assume that the Labour Party policy to which he referred of a directly-elected council for Wales will be deferred while consultations and discussions are taking place. Meanwhile there is the Council for Wales, which has come to the end of its period of life. What does the Secretary of State intend to do about reconstituting that Council? It has been of enormous value in advising both myself and my predecessor. It is important that a statement should be made about this. I do not want it made now but if we could be told by the Government spokesman tonight what is intended for the Council for Wales, it would be helpful.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that just before I left office I was intending to reconstitute the Council, knowing that there would be a period of time while Kilbrandon was being discussed when it would be needed so that it could continue to give advice to his Department.
I was interested in what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about steel. It is right that there is much that Wales can welcome in the strategy of the British Steel Corporation. I was interested to hear what the Government propose. The Secretary of State said that they proposed to stop the closures in Ebbw Vale, Shotton and Cardiff and to have an immediate review of steel requirements. Then he added, I think, "Without interfering with the present investment programme".
The timing of closures is of great importance and is a matter in which I have been interested. It was clear that the BSC would be flexible in its timing of closures. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not suggesting that the major development of capacity at Port Talbot to 6 million tonnes, the expansion of Llanwern, the major investment in the finishing processes—£45 million in Ebbw Vale and £27 million at Shotton—will be in jeopardy because the Corporation made it clear that its strategy

had to be considered as a whole and could not be dealt with piecemeal.
That should be clear. I know that it is the intention of the Secretary of State that this halting should take place without interfering with the present investment programme. The largest investment programme ever in the industry is involved. What is at stake is not just the future of a particular steelworks but the future of the whole steel industry. Unless this industry is modern, efficient and competitive, there will not be just a loss of jobs in some areas there will be the collapse of the whole industry. The security of 50,000 jobs in Wales is involved because if the strategy is carried into full effect these jobs would be absolutely secure.
It is always dangerous for a Government to take over the commercial decisions of an organisation such as the BSC. I am sure that what the Government wish to do is to go into the matter carefully to satisfy themselves that the strategy is right and that movement is possible, either over the timing of closures or of the actual closures. If it were possible, I know that the Government would be only too happy to accept it, and my hon. Friends and I would be only too happy to support the Government.
One of the difficulties of being in my position, having only recently been in the office of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, is that I have to resist the temptation to raise every subject within the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Wales. I will resist that temptation.
When I wished the right hon. and learned Gentleman well I meant it most sincerely. I believe that the Secretary of State for Wales still has a contribution to make. The Welsh Office has made a big contribution in the past to the well-being of Wales and today the right hon. and learned Gentleman's office and the Welsh Office still have much to offer.
I believe it was Kilbrandon which said that one of the problems facing us was the failure of communications between the Government and the people. This was referred to by the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) in his speech last night when there was talk of the remoteness of administration. I do not believe that that applies in Wales. I believe that the Welsh Office and its


officials are very close to the Welsh people, that the contact between local authorities and officials and their understanding of the problems of Wales is quite unique.
There is close communication between the Welsh Office and the people of Wales. I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will find, during the time that he is Secretary of State, that he is served well by hard-working, loyal and efficient officials. He will find that they will serve him and Wales well. I should not like to see the Welsh Office or the right hon. Gentleman's office done away with because they have an important part to play in the life of Wales. Their functions should be enlarged.
I have no doubt that many of the policies which I have been following will be followed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I can offer him my support in all matters which my hon and right hon. Friends consider to be in the interest of Wales. He will not find us a divisive Opposition. He will find that we are an Opposition anxious to serve Wales in our way, as I am sure he wishes to serve it in his way.

ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Act:

Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act 1974.

WELSH AFFAIRS

Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales made a comprehensive speech and told us the broad lines of his thinking on major Welsh problems. It is early days for us to expect from my right hon. and learned Friend an overall strategy on the economic and industrial front in Wales, and we shall look forward to hearing him again when he has had time to consider the position in greater detail.
An economic and industrial strategy is certainly needed for the valleys of South Wales, the North-East, Mid-Wales and rural Wales generally. Although the introduction of a large industry from Japan, Europe or America into certain towns is very welcome, it does not comprise a strategy and we must think broadly about Wales as a whole.
For example, the Government will wish to review the policies of the previous Government, and to revive some of the policies of the last Labour Government. I am thinking in particular of the Mid-Wales Development Corporation, which I had the privilege of setting up in 1967. The corporation has achieved a great deal for Newtown and I congratulate Mr. Emrys Roberts, chairman of the corporation, his colleagues, and Mr. Garbett Edwards, the corporation's first-class secretary, on the excellent work they have done. The corporation should now be enable to work for the regeneration of other towns in Mid-Wales.
I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend is thinking about setting up a new agency, possibly along the lines of the Highlands and Islands Development Board. It cannot be precisely the same because that board covers a much vaster area which is more varied geographically. We accept that all new developments depend on the availability of money, and that is very much in our minds these days, but I am sure that the Secretary of State appreciates the need for forward planning so that we can move quickly when the economic situation improves.
The Welsh Council produced its document, "A Strategy for Rural Wales", in 1971 and its "Economic Strategy for North-West Wales" a little earlier, but no effective action was taken on those documents by the previous Government. The right hon. and learned Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas) extolled the virtues of his policy, but in Anglesey and North-West Wales generally we have experienced a period of stagnation over the last throe-and-a-half years, whereas during the term of the previous Labour Government we saw significant progress.
We know that cuts in public expenditure have harsher consequences in areas of high unemployment and depopulation than in the more prosperous regions. The


previous Labour Government recognised this when cuts were made. We had winter relief programmes on roads and other services to enable men to be kept in work. My right hon. and learned Friend mentioned the cuts announced by the right hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) in November. They were indiscriminate cuts. One hopes that future reductions may be avoided, although one must be prepared for the worst next Tuesday. In any future cuts, therefore, I hope that the wind will be tempered to the shorn lamb and that the implications for development in areas in which there is high unemployment and depopulation will be borne in mind by the Government. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will do his best in that regard.
My right hon. and learned Friend was right to refer to his joint responsibility for agriculture. It goes without saying that rural Wales must have a sound agricultural base but, as he rightly acknowledged, many sectors of the industry have gone through a difficult time in the last 18 months, mainly because of the phenomenal increase in the price of feed. I raised this subject in the House two months ago, but the position has not since then improved. Milk producers received some help in the price review, but barely enough to cover their costs. Beef and pig producers were not assisted, and the latter are in especially grave difficulty.
I received a letter from the Welsh Agricultural Organisation Society on 12th March which contained extremely disquieting statistics in respect of the Quality Pig Federation of Wales. The letter stated:
Weaner production by federation groups in Wales last month was 2,000 per week as compared with 2,500 per week six months ago —a reduction of 20 per cent.
We have evidence that in some groups throughput has again fallen by as much as 50 per cent. over the past two months.
Weaner prices in Welsh groups increased by between 3 per cent. and 9 per cent. over the last 12 months, whereas pig food prices increased by a little over 50 per cent. during the same period; this in itself discourages any future confidence in pig production.
Transport cost per mile has increased by at least 30 per cent. in the last 12 months with another increase in the pipeline following the recent increases in the cost of fuel. We in Wales are very much affected by this because

of the distance between producer groups and the fatteners, the majority of whom are in England.
Fat pig prices have reached disastrous levels; pork pigs were sold by some feeders of Welsh weaners at £2·30 a score live weight this week. representing a loss of approximately £7 per pork pig without taking labour, depreciation and general overheads into account.
That letter discloses an extremely serious situation and I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to discuss it with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. There is a danger that the British pig industry may come to the verge of collapse if some action is not taken.
In the industrial field, notwithstanding what the right hon. and learned Member for Hendon, South said, my constituency has been through a stagnant period. Employment stands at 8 per cent. of the insured population. I have already spoken to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State about the vacant advance factory at Amlwch. It has been empty for the past three-and-a-half years, and it became vacant then because the investment grant was abolished by the last Government. I hope that we shall soon secure a good tenant for it.
We must give the Government credit for acting quickly and decisively on some urgent matters in a short time. The decision to freeze council house rents was widely welcome. It affects 6,000 council house tenants in Anglesey. I hope that after the poor record of the previous Government in council house building we shall very soon see some progress in new building. I appreciate the hopeful words of my right hon. and learned Friend on this subject.
I thought that the right hon. and learned Member for Hendon, South did himself less than justice in refusing to accept responsibility for the lamentable record of the Conservative Government on house-building. In 1973 a little over 3,000 council houses were built in Wales. This was not good enough and the former Secretary of State cannot fob it off and say that it was somebody else's resonsibility. There was a lack of push and drive both in Parliament and in the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office in Cardiff under his leadership.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I was wondering whether the right hon. Gentleman could suggest any reasons for this decline. His Labour Party colleagues have pointed to an identical situation in 1970 and have tried to find explanations for it. Surely the decline has continued unabated since 1964.

Mr. Hughes: I welcome the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) to the Opposition Front Bench, but he must do better than that. He should look at the statistics. I have not the precise figures in my mind, but I recall that in 1968, when I was Secretary of State for Wales, over 20,000 houses were built of which over 10,000 were council houses. This was the result of deliberate Government policy. The funds must be found to enable the building to take place and there must also be considerable drive through the Welsh Office to the housing authorities. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has entrusted my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) with his task. Last week's announcement about a substantial addition to rate support in Wales is also welcome.
At Question Time on Monday the Secretary of State said that he and his colleagues are reviewing the position of the 75 per cent. improvement grant. I hope that we may have a statement on this very soon. We were glad that the right hon. and learned Member for Hendon, South promised his support for it. This is a welcome change in attitude, because he was frigidly unreceptive when we appealed to him a few weeks ago. There is joy in Heaven at one sinner who repenteth and I am glad that the former Secretary of State for Wales has now joined this happy band.
Another inheritance from the last Government relates to the proposed increased water charges as a result of the Water Act of 1973. I have spoken of this matter to my right hon. and learned Friend and have written to him at length on it. I shall not weary the House with the detailed case because so many hon. Members want to take part in this important debate. This matter affects all Welsh water undertakings to some degree, but in some areas, including Anglesey, the proposals are ridiculous. Water charges are being increased by 422 per cent. at a

time when inflation is our most serious problem. This is an unconscionable burden. I ask my right hon. Friend to take action on this subject as quickly as he can. We accept that we might have to bear some slight increase, but it is quite intolerable that we should be expected to shoulder this rate of increase.
A householder now paying £7 a year water rate will be expected to pay £29 per year after 1st April, and this is unreasonable when one bears in mind the other rate increases which are impending. This will certainly be a disincentive to industry to come into the area and will also be an additional burden to farmers. It is wrong that Anglesey County Council, a pioneering authority in this sphere—the only county council in the United Kingdom to promote its own private Bill through this House and to become a county water undertaking—should be penalised in this way. I hope that there will be immediate steps to reduce this unreasonable charge.
Our difficulties in Anglesey are being compounded for another reason as well. Anglesey ratepayers are being penalised since the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office, in preparing the order covering differential rating for 1974–75, overlooked the fact that the Anglesey County Council is a water authority—the only one in England and Wales—and that the general county precept for 1973–74 of 36p included an amount of 4·25p in respect of the deficit on the county water undertaking. Since other counties do not have similar figures in their county precepts, the order for differential rating should have provided for the deficit on the water undertaking —a figure of 4·25p—to be omitted so that the 1973–74 precept in the counties forming the new Gwynedd Council would have been on the same basis. As a result, the county precept to be levied in Anglesey in 1974–75 of 51·1p is 3·1p more than it should be. What is now wanted is for the Department of the Environment to prepare an amending order immediately so that Anglesey ratepayers receive relief immediately and not next year.
I believe that the case I am submitting is a just one. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will be able to take urgent action to remove these inequities,


which are the cause of acute concern in my constituency.
I wish my right hon. and learned Friend every success in his office. Sir 0. M. Edwards began his History of Wales with this sentence:
The history of Wales is a history of tribal warfare …
All in this House will know that there is still an element of tribal warfare in our society! But, mercifully, we have learned to conduct our affairs in a civilised way. This is one of the traditions of Welsh politics, of which we should be proud. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will be a worthy custodian of this tradition. There is no greater honour for a Welshman than to be the first Minister in his own country, and I know that he will do his utmost to justify the trust placed in him.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. Ian Grist: I should like to thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me this early opportunity to open my innings, particularly in this debate which I have often attended in the past, though in a mute capacity. Today I am addressing the House in a somewhat hobbled condition.
As the House will know, I have the honour to represent the constituency of Cardiff, North. Because it is reconstituted it is almost unnecessary to go into the usual paeons of praise for my predecessors because they are present in the Chamber. I refer to my hon. Friends the Members for Barry (Mr. Gower) and for Cardiff, North-West (Mr. Michael Roberts). The fact that they are back in the House shows the high regard in which the electorate holds them.
Cardiff, North is a capital constituency—not merely because of its political maturity but because, in a very real sense, it incorporates the heart of the capital of Wales. It incorporates, among other things, two of the constituent colleges of the University of Wales; it contains the finest municipal buildings probably in Europe, including the National Museum of Wales, not forgetting Cardiff Arms Park and the Welsh Office itself. In addition, almost the whole of Cardiff's shopping area is incorporated in my constituency, which was described in a national daily news-

paper during the election as a "shop and live" constituency. I regard it as rather more of a "shop, live and administer" district.
This leads me to my first point of substance. Historically, Wales has lacked a large service sector in her economy. Traditionally, one can say that the size of a service sector is indicative of the modernity and prosperity of a country's economy. However, in Cardiff the position has become seriously reversed, since the service sector is now dangerously dominant—a position which will be further enhanced when the Western Region rail headquarters are opened in Cardiff and also when the Companies Registration Office is established there.
I have stated many times in the past outside the House, I believe, that Cardiff should be granted full development area status. This action would help—I do not claim more than that—to make Cardiff more attractive, especially to school-leavers, whose inclination is to work with their hands or to use mechanical or engineering skills. These young people otherwise may not find work in their home city. It is with this thought in mind that I welcome the Government's proposal to review the British Steel Corporation's closure policy. But I hope very much that expectations will not be raised unnecessarily only to be dashed all the more cruelly later.
I turn now to a proposal contained in the Welsh election manifesto of the Labour Party, namely the proposal to merge the counties of Mid and South Glamorgan. I do not detect any great urgency on the part of the Government to carry out this pledge, and I shall be only too happy to let byegones be byegones if they now repudiate it.
The reason for undoing the new local authority structure was all along founded on false premises. The fact that the Labour Party has won control both of South Glamorgan County Council and of the Cardiff District Council has shown that their fears about the electoral consequences of the new authorities were wholly unfounded. But so long as this pledge to merge the counties remains open, there will be grave uncertainty amongst the local authorities concerned, especially amongst their professional staffs. Already they have had to adjust


to one massive upheaval. They have won new jobs and carved out new careers. All these will he at risk and all the planning for the future will be jeopardised. What is more, I remind the Secretary of State that this will be as true for the staffs of Mid-Glamorgan as it is for those of South Glamorgan.
I want to touch finally on a general problem. We all know, and no doubt everyone has said it at one time or another, that Wales flourishes when Britain flourishes but that, when the British economy catches a cold, we tend to catch pneumonia. Many Government supporters and members of the British public still do not understand the full gravity of our economic situation. The overall success of our policy in Wales, the ending of the miners' strike—whatever the terms on which it was ended—and the coming of spring have seriously misled many people. I am deeply concerned that the statement to be made next Tuesday by the Chancellor of the Exchequer may gravely exacerbate the inflationary spiral in which we find ourselves.
If that should prove to be the case, business confidence will slump and profits will plummet. One of the simple reasons is the transfer of low velocity money into hands where it will be spent as soon as it is received. In these circumstances industry will almost certainly cut back disastrously on its investment proposals. This would be fatal for the economy of Wales and for the hopes that we all have for her future.
This is perhaps not the time or place to go into the economics of the situation, but I hope that the Secretary of State will bear these considerations in mind when he is discussing the Government's strategy with his colleagues. Failure here could mean unemployment in Wales as high as, if not higher than, that which occurred 40 years ago.
I cannot end my speech without wishing the Secretary of State success in his new post. He was extremely kind to me during an earlier election. It must be a source of some wonder to him that, however many Conservative candidates he Meats in Aberavon, sooner or later they pop up on the benches opposite him. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that we shall be criticising him and harrying him for as long as he sits on

the Treasury Bench. But he knows also that we are united in seeking to promote the welfare and happiness of the people of Wales.
Before I sit down I want to make it clear that I intend no insult to the Chair or to the House if I leave in the near future. I intend to come back before the end of the debate if possible. I shall be seeking some more qualified medical advice on the condition of my ankle.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. Ifor Davies: It is always a great pleasure to be called to speak immediately after a new Member has delivered his maiden speech. On behalf of the House and in its best traditions I extend to the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Grist) a welcome to this great arena where the Government can be criticised and where grievances can be ventilated.
The hon. Gentleman said that he was opening his parliamentary innings. Today he was batting on a good and smooth wicket. We cannot always promise him that the playing will not he rougher in future. However, we look forward to hearing him again in this House and in the Welsh Grand Committee.
I join my hon. Friensd in expressing delight that the opening speech on this Welsh day has been delivered by a Secretary of State on behalf of a Labour Government. My right hon. and learned Friend begins his task with the sincere and best wishes of right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House.
My right hon. and learned Friend gave us a very comprehensive speech touching on a great many matters. I intend to take up only one of them. He emphasised the importance of the steel and coal industries. I remind him that there is a shadow over the coal industry and over many of our pits. I have one shadow of closure over Brynlliw in my own constituency. In the new situation of the coal industry I commend to my right hon. and learned Friend for serious consideration the lifting of that shadow of closure over Brynlliw. Despite the geological problems there, I am confident that the men will achieve the desired result within 12 months if they are given a new opportunity to make the pit pay. I look forward to my right hon. and learned


Friend's co-operation in an effort to retain Brynlliw as a going concern.
We are glad to have with us the right hon. and learned Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas), now sitting on the Opposition Front Bench. I am not sure whether he heard the murmurs on the Government benches when he was speaking. At the beginning of his speech we thought that he was doing rather better than he had done when he was Secretary of State. Unfortunately he got worse as he proceeded with his speech. I was sorry that he marred what began as a good speech by criticism of the mining industry. It became obvious that, if he had still been Secretary of State and if his party had still been in Government, we would still have been in the middle of the miners' strike and probably a three-day working week. We welcome the right hon. and learned Gentleman's change of seat. I hope that we shall see him sitting over there for a long time to come.
It is part of our tradition on Welsh days that hon. Members choose matters to raise in the debate which they consider to be of special importance to them. I do not intend to change that tradition, because I have my own priorities. However, one issue which has been revealed in this debate already is that it is the economic health of the whole country which is our deepest concern at the moment.
I suggest that our entire national wealth, our standard of living and our ability to pay our way all revolve round one central factor. It is that the productive capacity of each of our citizens is directly related to his personal health and his physical and mental well being. For that reason, I wish to draw attention to a matter which I believe to be of vital importance: the health of the whole community and the problems of medical education and medical manpower, which I shall discuss in the Welsh context.
First, I wish to remind the House about the Royal Commission on Medical Education which was set up in 1965 by the then Home Secretary, a Welsh Member, Sir Frank Soskice. The commission's report has never been discussed in this House. It has been before the other

place, but it has not been discussed here. The commission reported in 1968, after three years of detailed discussion, and later I shall refer to one of its chief recommendations concerning Wales.
One reason for setting up the commission was the serious shortage of doctors confronting this country at that time. Today, six years after the commission reported and made its recommendations, the situation is no better. If anything, it is much worse.
Six years ago the percentage of students obtaining admission to medical schools was 39 per cent. of the total applicants. Today, that figure has dropped to 26 per cent. That is a sad reflection on our state of medical progress. It reveals a grave situation in the medical world that we should have witnessed a drop of one-third in the total intake of medical students in proportion to applicants during those six years. This situation reflects on the position in Wales, which has only one medical school, in Cardiff, compared with five in Scotland and 24 in England, 12 of those being in London.
The intake of medical students to the Cardiff school last year was 120, but the number of applicants for those places can be multiplied 10 times over. Indeed, the total number of applicants for those 120 Cardiff places last year was 1,200.
It is a terrible condemnation of the situation that we are turning away from our medical schools large numbers of would-be British doctors and at the same time finding ourselves dependent on overseas graduates. In Wales 60 per cent. of junior hospital doctors are from overseas.
Some months ago the Daily Telegraph published an article in its magazine entitled,
Are there enough doctors in the house?
That article gave an analysis of Britain's dependence on overseas doctors to keep the National Health Service ticking over. We are told that overall—these figures have not been challenged—one-third of our hospital doctors come from abroad and that in certain medical specialties and geographical regions Britain's hospitals are almost wholly staffed by overseas doctors.
Geriatrics is the most telling example, with 83 per cent. of registrars and 87 per cent. of senior house officers coming from overseas. Again, 67 per cent. of registrars specialising in diseases of the chest come from abroad. In obstetrics and gynaecology, 67 per cent. of registrars are born overseas. Even in surgery, the most popular and competitive hospital specialty, whole areas of Britain are dependent for care on the flow of overseas doctors wishing to work and study in Britain. I hasten to pay a sincere tribute to those doctors for their magnificant work. I do not wish to be misunderstood in any way. Our hospital services would be facing an extremely grave crisis without them. Indeed, they may even break down completely.
This state of affairs is clear proof that we should do far more to provide medical education for our own students who are desperately anxious to train as doctors. This point is highlighted in a letter in The Times this morning from a headmaster who complains that three out of four boys and two out of three girls applying to medical schools failed to get admission.
Another serious consequence of the shortage of doctors is the closure of many casualty departments. Many of my hon. Friends are aware of the acute problem that this has created.
That leads me to the Royal Commission's recommendation to which I referred. On page 148, Table 5, the commission recommended that for next year. 1975, the annual intake of medical students should reach 4,300. This report was written six years ago and that was the recommendation then made. We are still well below that figure. Indeed, the figure for admissions to medical schools in 1973 was only 3,200. Therefore, if the recommended target of 4,300 is to be reached, there is no time to be lost in making further provision for medical education.
That logically brings me to the recommendation relating to Wales in particular. In paragraph 390, the commission states:
The medical school capacity available soon after 1975"—
we are nearly there—
could, we think, be further increased by the establishment of a new medical school at Swansea, where conditions are very suitable. The University College there has already more

than 3,000 students, most of whom come from outside Wales, and offers substantial relevant academic resources. A big new hospital, which in our view could be adapted without great difficulty for undergraduate clinical teaching, has been built immediately alongside as College and land is available for expansion; this hospital, with other hospitals in the district"—
I should like to emphasise that part—
could meet the needs of a reasonably large medical school on the assumption that the population drawn upon will be not only that of the immediate area … but for many purposes that of the whole of south-west Wales, which is over 850,000 at present and is likely to expand as industrial and commercial development proceeds.
This is a significant and specific recommendation which I hope the House will note, especially the phrase
where conditions are very suitable.
There is widespread support throughout Wales for that recommendation.
It will be within the recollection of many of my hon. Friends that I placed Motion No. 591 on the Order Paper to this effect soon after that report was published. That motion was signed by all Members representing Welsh constituencies.
Support has also been given by the University of Wales, the Welsh Regional Council of Labour, the Welsh Hospital Board, the Hospital Management Committee, the President of the Royal College 01 Physicians, the British Medical Association many local authorities and others. I do not know of any other issue affecting the Principality which has received such widespread and enthusiastic support. I pay tribute to the right hon. and learned Member for Hendon, South, the former Secretary of States for Wales, for the way he received deputations on this matter and for the sympathy and support he expressed.
The Royal Commission, in paragraph 386, pronounced also an important educational principle:
The modern medical school must he an integral part of a university which can be expected to provide in due course a full range of opportunities for instruction and research in those biological, physical and behavioural sciences which are relevant to medicine. The general scale of the university's development must be big enough to allow a medical school which is established within it to reach the desirable size without causing imbalance and distortion in the pattern of the university's activities.
Swansea University College is fully suited to answer those requirements. I


should declare an interest at this juncture. It is my privilege to be the elected chairman of Swansea University Council. I assure the House that the university is fully prepared to give effect to the commission's recommendation. Indeed, it is now even more suited for the purpose than when the recommendation was made.
For example, the university has a chair of biochemistry already established and the department is fully operative. There is also the engineering faculty which provides certain allied subjects to medical students such as biochemical engineering. Further, work is also being done in the electronics field and there is close liaison with local medical consultants in certain aspects of medical application.
I am pleased to add that last November the Department of Health and Social Security sanctioned a £75,000 grant for five years to set up a medical sociology research unit. When this unit is completed which will be soon, Swansea University will have one of the largest centres of research in the sociology of medicine in the United Kingdom. Therefore, the university is well suited for the establishment of a medical school.
I appreciate that the advice of the University Grants Committee is involved in this matter, as it concerns an educational question. I realise too that a new medical school is a costly undertaking, involving close integration with hospital development. The complete project, pre-clinical and clinical, is likely to cost upwards of £7 million, which means that the Government would be directly involved in the making of a decision.
I urge my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State to imprint on his mind the Royal Commission's recommendation together with the facts which I have outlined, and to exercise all his authority within the Cabinet to establish, as a matter of urgency, a much-needed second medical school in Wales, to be located at Swansea University.

6.27 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I shall not take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Davies), although I know that the subject on which he has spoken is close to his heart. He has been a great advocate of it in

the House and elsewhere. I am sure that what he says deserves the utmost attention from the Secretary of State and that it has great support in the House.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Grist) on his maiden speech and wish him all success in the House. I do not know what he meant by his reference to low velocity money. During the sojourn of the previous Government we became accustomed only to high velocity money, but no doubt the hon. Gentleman can explain the matter on another occasion.
At the start of a new Parliament the Secretary of State, being new to office, enjoys probably the easiest ride which he can expect in the House. I was pleased to hear him refer in his speech to his great support for the Welsh language. Knowing his family, I know that this is true. I pay tribute to his predecessors who have shown great concern for the Welsh language. It would be schizophrenic if Welsh Members were concerned only with the physical environment of Wales and had little concern for what has made the Welsh nation tick over the centuries as we secured our independent, social and cultural character.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to his many connections with agriculture—which no one can doubt—but he brought little comfort to people living in the Welsh countryside. He shares some responsibility with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, with whom the prime responsibility for agriculture rests. However, the Secretary of State should immediately use all possible influence with the Cabinet to emphasise the importance of the present crisis in agriculture. Hundreds, if not thousands, of small Welsh farmers virtually face bankruptcy. Livestock and pig breeders are losing money quickly. The dairy industry was in the same position until it received relief through price increases, although these did not cover the industry's costs.
I recently received a touching letter from the daughter of a man who farms a smallholding in my constituency. He has farmed it successfully, but the daughter tells me that he is now losing £4 a day—that was in December. Such a situation can be repeated from many places.
No doubt the Secretary of State realises that unless the Government take action


quickly, many farmers will be affected. They are the backbone of Welsh cultural and social life in the Principality. Action must be taken quickly, and I endorse the remarks made about this by the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes).
Across-the-board cuts in capital expenditure imposed by the previous Government did not help agriculture in Wales. The remoter areas of Wales, and some of the decaying industrial areas, suffer proportionately far greater than more prosperous areas because of across-the-board cuts.
I shall give some examples. There are areas in my constituency and in other parts of Wales which are without sewerage schemes. Schemes have been prepared and submitted to the Welsh Office and capital grant approval has been given. I have in mind particularly schemes for the Van and Llawryglyn, near Llanidloes, and at Darowen, near Machynlleth, in my constituency. These were postponed at the stage when tenders had been submitted. People are without proper sewerage services, probably the first necessity of civilised life. Some of the areas which I have in mind had to wait years for water supplies, and it was their misfortune that the previous Government cut back on extensions to water schemes or postponed them for two or three years.
I hope that the Secretary of State will ensure that there is more discrimination in cuts in public expenditure. There has been no discrimination so far. This is needed to give priority to services which are essential towards normal hygienic life, such as sewerage schemes in areas which the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows only too well.
Television reception affects cultural and social life in rural Wales. There has been a lot of pressure in Wales in recent years for a fourth television channel to be allocated to the Welsh language. I make no comment either way on that. The existing television channels have also pressed for further expenditure on sophisticated developments in populous areas, but many parts of Wales have dreadful television reception and some areas cannot receive television at all. In my area only one channel can be received.
Many areas, rural or industrial, have to pay the extra cost of having piped television. This means that television costs

twice as much in those areas as elsewhere. Many people want to join the Open University, but they are unable to receive BBC 2 and therefore they are unable to obtain the benefits of the service provided by that channel.
Let us get the matter into proper perspective. The Secretary of State and I, during the many years we have been together in this House, have always taken the view, for example, that Wales should contribute in full measure to the the United Kingdom economy and that Wales gains many rewards for its complete co-operation. But the truth is that Wales provides large quantities of things like water without charge, and never has charged for them. There should be reciprocity.
Previous Governments have always stated, for example, that it would cost a great deal of money to bring television reception to difficult areas in Wales. Of course it would. Nevertheless we provide many things to England, and we provide them cheaply. We are entitled to expect reciprocity. I understand that the Home Secretary is to be responsible for broadcasting, so I hope that the Secretary of State for Wales can do something to ensure that television reception in Wales receives priority.
It is foolish that a place like Bala, in Merioneth, cannot receive BBC Wales or Harlech Television. Television programmes going out in the Welsh language cannot be received in what has been the Mecca of Welsh religious life in so many ways.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The Athens of Wales.

Mr. Hooson: Perhaps it is, although I do not think that Athens would appreciate being called the Bala of Greece.
It is trite to say that the Welsh economy is dependent on the United Kingdom economy. It is. Mid-Wales has been going through a relatively prosperous period. But it is astounding how many of its factories are completely tied to the motor and aircraft industries in the Midlands, and if there is a general recession in the British economy, Mid-Wales will suffer greatly. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must bear this in mind.
Probably the right course in Mid-Wales would be to extend the remit of the new town development corporation because it has so much expertise. The right hon. Member for Anglesey has already paid tribute to the chairman and the officers of the corporation. Certain towns in Mid-Wales do not need its help. For example, Welshpool is 14 miles further east than the new town and has grown at almost exactly the same rate without special help. But other towns like Brecon, Llandrindod Wells, Blaenau Ffestiniog, Machynlleth and others need very much more help than perhaps Welsh-pool, which has grown naturally, having the geographical advantages of being nearer to the Midlands and having good transport communications. I should like to see the development corporation being able to look at the whole of the area and not being fettered in where it decides to develop. I should like to see it have the right to develop villages as well as towns.
In my constituency there is the Laura Ashley factory. It was begun when I first became a Member of this House 12 years ago. It began in a little railway building but is now an international firm of great repute employing about 750 people. It is a highly liberal firm. The transformation of the Welsh village there is worth seeing. Nearly all the personnel involved were working on farms 12 years ago, and now they have responsible positions. One can see in that factory what can be done by private enterprise. Such projects could be encouraged in the villages as well as in the towns.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Perhaps I may clarify one small point. The development corporation has power. What it lacks is the resources.

Mr. Hooson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. His knowledge of the powers of the corporation is far greater than mine. I am sure that the Secretary of State has the point very much in mind. This is an area of the country that he knows very well.
The Secretary of State referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells). I regret my hon. Friend's absence, but he is Vice-Chairman of the British Wool Marketing Board, which

before the election had arranged a meeting in Mid-Wales today. That accounts for his absence. The Secretary of State recalled that my hon. Friend had suggested that there should be a Minister of State for Agriculture at the Welsh Office. The people of Cardiganshire will take comfort not so much from the fact that the Secretary of State, in his eminent position, has part of the responsibility for agriculture as from the fact that there is a "Cardi" in the Cabinet. That is what will give them encouragement.
There are many other subjects on which I should have liked to touch, but many other hon. Members will be speaking. I wish the Secretary of State and the two Under-Secretaries of State great success, although no doubt I shall be critical of them. Their success means success for Wales as a whole, and of that we shall all be extremely glad.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. Fred Evans: I join in the general congratulatory atmosphere in the House and wish my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and his team the best of luck. I can assure him that our support will be strongly behind him in most of what he said today. However, I found one part of his speech rather difficult to follow.
The Labour Party's history in the question of devolution for Wales has always been logical and dignified and an example in good thinking to many other people in Wales. It is regrettable that in many parts of Wales little or no interest has been taken in the Kilbrandon Report.
I wonder how many of my hon. Friends representing industrial South Wales were asked about the Kilbrandon Report during the General Election campaign. I regret the lack of interest in many parts of Wales because the subject is of such vital importance to our country. I think that there are some people in my constituency who, if one mentioned Kilbrandon, would think that it represented some kind of animus against the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir Brandon Rhys Williams).
The Secretary of State was good enough to mention in a very inglorious circumstance the position of the area of Bargoed. It has the unenviable distinction of being the travel-to-work area with one of the highest unemployment rates


and probably the highest male unemployment rate in Britain.
My right hon. and learned Friend mentioned also the necessity to maintain our communities in the valleys, to refurbish their economy and make them once again very good and dignified places in which to live. The people of the valleys have always thought on these lines. They also happen to believe that a capital city like Cardiff cannot reach its true status unless it has the kind of hinterland that the valleys can provide with a properly-balanced economy and with the refurbishing of which they are sadly in need.
I was glad to see my right hon. and learned Friend's emphasis here, because when the Members from the South Wales Valleys drew up their evidence for presentation to the public inquiry into the new town at Llantrisant, this theme was one of the keys to that evidence. It was my honour to present it to the inquiry, together with my right hon. and learned Friend, whom I congratulate on his new appointment.
The core of our evidence was that in the Welsh valleys the urban authorities have had long experience in developing good amenities with very scarce resources in times of hardship and of heavily-afflicted economies. We pointed out that the know-how was there in the valleys. We asked that the Secretary of State should see that his voice was raised in the Cabinet, demanding that part of the colossal sum that would have been necessary to develop the new town at Llantrisant—£300 million was mentioned at one time—was channelled into the valleys to carry out the kind of resurrection of the valleys of which I am speaking.
In the new county of Mid-Glamorgan. for example, we have inherited many of the worst problems and we are receiving very little of anything that is going. We have one of the largest populations in Wales and the lowest but one rateable value to provide all the services needed for that huge population. We have the largest areas of derelict land and some of the poorest road systems. A vast amount of money needs to be pumped in. I hope that our new Secretary of State will take the chance to show his mettle.
When we come down to particularising, I raise my voice with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr.

Davies). I think that my constituency has more pits open in it than has any other constituency in Wales, but a threat hangs over them. In the new situation of world energy crisis, the industry must be maintained. It is a lifeline industry for that part of South Wales. But while we maintain and develop it, we must diversify our industries. We must attract and keep on attracting industries of all types, so that while our sheet anchors continue to be coal and steel we have ample opportunities for people to work in other industries if they wish.
As my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, the future of mining is now much brighter in the Welsh valleys. As he pleaded for Brynlliw, so I plead for the Ogilvie colliery, where there is a serious argument between the miners and the planners and technicians of the National Coal Board about just how much coal is there, how much of it can be got at and at what price. The review procedures are still going on. I have asked the Chairman of the NCB to meet me and other hon. Members concerned with the labour force before a final decision is reached. I hope that my hon. Friend will try to assist in whatever way he can.
If we are to have a diversified industry, I recommend my right hon. and learned Friend to reconsider suggestions made to his office some time ago. One was for a massive industrial development along the Heads of the Valleys road, with the valleys coming up to the plateau where a huge population could be catered for all the way from Neath up past Merthyr Tydvil and pretty well into the beginning of Mid-Wales. I drew up some feasibility studies, but we were told that the technical difficulties were great. All kinds of reasons why that should not be done were advanced.
But this has been a week of weeks. We began with one lonely person going down the road to Damascus, and now everybody is going down it. The previous Secretary of State, when he published his memorandum after rejecting the new town of Llantrisant, was by implication very churlish towards the inspector who conducted the inquiry, but he added—with an air of amazement—that industrialists were beginning to find that the Heads of the Valleys were desirable locations for industry and that they were beginning to show a great deal of interest.
My party's policies include a recommendation for sponsored Government factories, where we could manufacture products needed in various Departments. Anyone could name a dozen such items used in the National Health Service, in schools and elsewhere.
Once development begins and services are provided, it is surprising how quickly other industries come in. Massive development of the kind I envisage at the Heads of the Valleys would cure many of the problems of the Monmouthshire and Glamorgan valleys. It would provide a travel-to-work access as a result of which the bulk of the population would not have to travel for more than about 20 minutes to and from work. In this day and age it is an intolerable burden to place on a working man that he must travel for an hour or more to and from his work. That eats into his leisure time and destroys much of his family life. If we are to be rational, we must say now that industry is to be brought to people and people are not to be dragged away to industry, wherever it is located.
I shall not go into some of the other matters mentioned by my right hon. and learned Friend, because many other hon. Members wish to speak. I again congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his appointment. I liked his personal testimony at the end of his speech and his pledging of himself to Wales. One of the most offensive things I find is that some people in Wales look upon others as non-Welsh. That is something we shall dispute to the nth degree. We are thoroughly Welsh, and we shall not have our birthright taken from us. Therefore, I join my right hon. and learned Friend in that kind of testament, although our backgrounds are very different. The will shown in his peroration is the sort of thing that will bring Wales to success.

6.53 p.m.

Sir Raymond Gower: I add my congratulations to the new Secretary of State for Wales. He has had expressions of good will from all parts of the House today. I am sure that he will accept them as a measure of our good will towards him and his office. We wish him every success in his duties.
The only time I felt inclined to disagree with the right hon. and learned

Gentleman was when he dealt with employment matters, about which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas) commented. In my view, one of the surprising things at the time of the recent troubles was the remarkable resilience of the Welsh economy in all the circumstances, a fact from which we can all take some encouragement. What might have been a very dangerous situation proved to be otherwise. I hope that the Secretary of State has not overlooked that aspect of the situation which we have seen in recent months. The Welsh economy stood up remarkably well to the stresses and strains caused by the crisis in the coal industry and the international oil problems. That is a good omen for our industrial future in Wales.
I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Grist), who made his maiden speech charmingly and well. I feel sure that he will be a good representative of his constituency.
I was impressed by yesterday's debate on the Kilbrandon Commission on the Constitution. I shall not develop in any great degree now the arguments that were made then. I should like to comment, however, that the debate revealed that there are considerable differences of outlook, even among members of the same party. Some differences were not pronounced, but others were considerable. There are, too, different personal attitudes to these important problems.
We must not forget, for example, those who favour extensive devolution at an early date. Different outlooks on the problems exist in different parts of the Principality as well. I hope it is recognised that the attitudes to these matters are not the same in, say, Caernarvon or Merioneth as they are in Monmouth or Flint. That is one of our difficulties.
Whatever we decide in the future, one of the most important factors to be borne in mind is that when we are arranging constitutional changes of magnitude it is essential that we should carry with us the majority of the people of Wales. We could go ahead of the majority opinion in Wales, which might have unfortunate consequences in some parts of the Principality. I shall not dwell on that question because, as other hon. Members have


said, I believe the report to be of such size and importance that it demands careful and mature consideration. I agree with hon. Members who commented that the Government are entitled to adequate time to consider what proposals they wish to bring forward.
I do not want to see the United Kingdom unduly fragmented. I consider that it would be an advantage for Britain, whatever devolution we have within the United Kingdom, to have a fairly united voice in the councils of Europe and of the world. I do not favour reduction of Welsh representation at Westminster, and I want the Welsh Office and the Secretary of State's office maintained. I submit to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there is a case for further extension of the functions of the Welsh Office.
I shall not make many suggestions about the actual subjects which could be added. We have already gone some way towards achieving that extension. When the Conservative Government were in office we extended the functions to cover education at primary and secondary level. I should have thought that there was a case for increasing the Secretary of State's own functions in the sphere of agriculture—not exclusive control, but perhaps to give the right hon. Gentleman a greater share of the responsibility. Again, I suggest that railways might be covered by the Welsh Office.
I admit that the Welsh railway system leads into the system in England, but with the importance of branch lines—we have had an assurance that these will not be closed—I consider that the internal railway system of Wales should be included in the functions of the Welsh Office. I hope that the Secretary of State and his Government colleagues will look at this suggestion sympathetically. It is an important matter. The Welsh Office deals with roads. It has responsibility for the creation of new motorways in Wales. Railways are another important form of transport, and I believe that the Welsh Office should have responsibility for them internally in Wales as well. That is a matter for the Government's consideration.
I want to comment on another aspect, that of roads. I agree with what the Secretary of State said about the M4. It

is an urgent matter. So too is the question of communications between Cardiff and Merthyr and along the North Wales coast. I accept that. I should like to see greater attention paid to the roads that serve the South Wales ports. The Secretary of State should see the heavy vehicles that now have to go to Barry Docks, for example, through narrow roads in places like Dinas Powis—well known to the right hon. and learned Gentleman—and then have to struggle through the residential streets of Barry. Many of those vehicles are far too wide and big for the streets through which they are driven. The Minister would then recognise the need for better road communications with the docks. I believe that this situation is found in parts of Cardiff as well. This matter has not been raised often. I think that it applies less in the case of Swansea, where there are double-track roads running into the city, but it applies in Cardiff and in the port of Barry. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will study the question sympathetically and give encouragement to the new local authorities to tackle the problem.
There is also the question of the tourist roads in Wales. I appreciate that industrial needs are paramount, but tourism is in its way one of the most important of our industries and perhaps we sometimes overlook the need for improving the access roads to the tourist centres.
I wish to make one comment on the question of air services in Wales. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, this is the part of our economy in Wales where we have had less help than in any other part of the United Kingdom. The airport in my constituency at Rhoose, the Glamorgan airport, needs 'financial help for the authorities which are now contemplating assuming responsibility for it. It may be a combination of two or three authorities or more, and these really must have greater help from the central Government. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that approaches have been made. He knows that meetings have been held and delegations received. I regard this as a matter of the utmost importance.
As for civil aviation in the rest of Wales, it is conspicuous more by its absence than by its presence. Scotland


and most of England have had great amounts of money spent on civil aviation, on airports and so on. It is just about time that Wales had some, even though it be on a more moderate scale. I shall not develop further arguments in the limited time that is available. I would like to say something more about employment, but I support what my hon. Friend for Cardiff, North said about the need to have the county of South Glamorgan included in the Welsh development area. It has been handicapped by its proximity to the areas which are classified in the development area, and the loss of industry has been considerable. I think that the time has now come to include the South Glamorgan area, including Cardiff, right down to Llantwit Major and indeed, I believe, Newport too. All these areas should be included.
Finally, I want to say something about the hospital services in my constituency, and I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to consider a point I want to make about them. I welcome the recommendation which has now come from the Welsh Hospital Board that there shall be accident units at Barry, at Caerphilly and at Rhondda. It is only a pity that the board did not recognise this a long time ago when the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Evans), myself and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) tried hard to present this case to successive members of the Welsh Hospital Board. I am glad it has been accepted now. We need these accident units; we desperately need one in Barry, with our industrial needs as well, and this will be a great improvement.
I want to see an early decision by the Government, by the Welsh Office, to implement the plan to create, as a second district general hospital in the Cardiff area, the two hospitals at Llandough and Sully and incorporating the accident unit at the Barry Community Hospital as well. These three hospitals should be included in one administrative unit, and this could be a very effective second district general hospital.
I fear that there have been some errors in hospital administration in the areas of Cardiff and South-East Glamorgan. There has been, I am sad to say, an

over-concentration on the glories of the fine, splendid hospital, the University Hospital at the Heath, Cardiff, and there has been an under-concentration on some of the really serious needs of the other hospitals. There has been over-spending on the University Hospital at the Heath, with the consequence that there has not been enough money to devote to the real needs of the other hospitals.
There have also been administrative errors. I will cite one to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. A large sum of money was spent recently on important alterations at the Glossop Maternity Hospital in Cardiff, and to my knowledge the facilities then created have not been used. This is the sort of error that has been made, and I do not want that sort of error repeated in the case of the hospitals at Sully and Llandough. Now is the time to go ahead with the plans which are generally approved by people throughout a very wide area for the creation of this new unit. I sincerely hope that the Secretary of State, now that the Welsh Office is, I believe, assuming the main responsibility for hospital service throughout Wales, will see that these matters are not deferred any longer.
I conclude, as other hon. Members have done, by wishing the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues success in their undertaking. I think that, contrary to what he said, in most respects they have good prospects in many fields of their work, but they have problems too and we wish them well in trying to solve them.

7.6 p.m.

Mr. Walter Padley: I begin, in common with the rest of the House, by congratulating on their appointments my right hon. and learned Friend and the team that accompanies him. I do so the more heartily because I share with him the great basin of coal and steel in that part of Mid-Glamorgan which the Aberavon and Ogmore constituencies constitute together with Neath.
I should also like to congratulate the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Grist) on his maiden speech. I wish him well at the doctor's, for he happens to be a constituent of mine, though he promises to remove two votes from my constituency before the next election!
I was glad that the new Secretary of State began by referring to the dispute in the mining industry, because, despite the tenor of today's debate, let us not forget that the foundation of the Welsh economy, as of the British economy, is still coal, and upon coal also the steel industry. I was surprised by the way in which the right hon. and learned Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas), the former Secretary of State, arrogated to himself the right to speak for the Welsh miners and the British miners, saying that they could have had a better deal had they pursued different industrial and political tactics. The fact is that without the use of industrial power by the National Union of Mineworkers, followed by the political victory of the Labour Party, there would not have been an immediate end to the coal dispute and a virtual end to the three-day week.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State knows, the problem of my constituency throughout the years was not pit closures but a shortage of manpower. The six pits in my constituency produce the coal that feeds the blast furnaces at the great Abbey steel works in my right hon. and learned Friend's constituency. Those steel works are due to be doubled in size, and the recent news of an influx of manpower into the mining industry is vital not only to the mining industry but to the steel industry.
In some of the pits in my constituency more than half the total manpower comes from outside the valley in which the pits are located. It is a sad reflection on the state of the manpower situation that has been allowed to develop over the years that the existence of the mining industry in South Wales, the Ogmore, Llynfi and Garw valleys and the great Abbey steel works producing three million tons of steel a year and due to he doubled in size to six million tons in the not-too-distant future depends on labour put out of a job in the terrible pit closures of earlier years.
If one goes back over the records one finds that it was only at periods when unemployment generally increased that there was a decline in the number of vacancies for the pits in my part of Mid-Glamorgan. The wage increase, which some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen

opposite denounce as inflationary, was absolutely necessary not only to safeguard the future of more than half of Britain's primary source of energy but to preserve the basis for the maintenance and expansion of the steel industry. With the steel industry I include the rest of the industrial complex of Mid-Glamorgan, Wales and Britain. As my right hon. and learned Friend assumes office as Secretary of State for Wales, let us never forget that for many years to come the future of our constituencies, and of the South Wales and British economies, will depend on the attraction of manpower to the mining industry and a thriving coal industry, because without it we cannot have a thriving steel industry and a thriving economy.
The hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) referred to hospitals and the health service. Here I enter a constituency plea: before the election I chased the former Secretary of State about the finality of the purchase of land to build the general hospital in Bridgend, which is scheduled for 1977. When I ask a question on the subject in the not-too-distant future, I hope that there will be the affirmative reply that the land deal has been finalised, that the hospital, for which we have been waiting for so long, is to go ahead and will be started at least by 1977.
I turn to the controversial issue of the Kilbrandon Report. There may be a variety of views about devolution in Wales. What I find offensive is the way in which the word "Kilbrandon" has been bandied about—particularly by two political parties in the Principality—without making it clear whether they refer to Lord Kilbrandon as a person or to the five reports that could be called "Kilbrandon Reports", and within those five reports probably seven sets of proposals.
Before we start to argue about substance, we should all agree that the one thing that the Kilbrandon Commission did unanimously was to reject separatism as advocated by the nationalists, and federalism as advocated by the Liberal Party. Those are the two issues on which the 13 members of the Kilbrandon Commission were united. If there were any need to demonstrate the folly and futility of separatism it is shown by the history of the mining industry.


The recent miners' dispute demonstrated the necessity for the unity of the Yorkshire, Welsh, Durham and Scottish miners. It was no accident that the former president of the South Wales miners—a constituent of mine—reminded his audiences that South Wales miners were among the leaders of those who wanted to end Welsh wages, Scottish wages and Yorkshire wages, to end what were called district ascertainments, and move towards a National Union of Mineworkers on an all-British scale.
But it was not only separatism that was rejected as being disastrous for Wales and Scotland and disadvantageous for England; it was also federalism, on the practical ground that it is extraordinarily difficult to federate about 2½ million people in Wales, 5 million in Scotland, 1 million in Northern Ireland and about 45 million in England.
Whatever the Kilbrandon Commission did or did not do, it unanimously sank without trace the specious pleas of separatism and federalism. Then it divided into a majority of 11 and a minority of two. The majority of 11 then divided, not as a leading article in yesterday's edition of The Guardian said, into a majority of eight and a minority of three in favour of legislative assemblies for Wales and Scotland, but into a majority of eight favouring an assembly for Scot-and and a majority of six for Wales. It may be that six is a majority of 11, but it is also a minority of 13.
I will not pursue this too far. My point is that the demands of the two parties that I mentioned are largely nonsense. The fact is that the consensus of Kilbrandon is naturally more aligned to the historic party of the Welsh people, not self-appointed, but chosen by them for half a century. The evidence which the Labour Party submitted to Kilbrandon was typically British Labour Party evidence. The Welsh evidence was the democratic decision of the Welsh Labour movement, decided by the movement's annual conference.
The viewpoint of the Scottish Labour movement at that time differed in some particulars from the Welsh movement, but the Scottish movement, through its annual conference, decided on its evidence. This was accompanied by

evidence from Transport House, pooling the wisdom of the regions of England. Thus the Labour Party, in matters that were either purely Scottish or purely Welsh, adopted the line of complete autonomy. An elected council or assembly with wide executive and administrative powers was the evidence in Wales, and by that we should stand.
There are arguments sometimes in Wales and in Scotland about legislative or fiscal powers, fiscal powers being mentioned more often for Scotland. Local authorities have legislative powers in so far as they can adopt byelaws. They also have fiscal powers in so far as they can levy rates. We should concentrate on the Kilbrandon consensus, which was in line with the democratic evidence of the Labour movement—an elected council or assembly with wide powers.
Having done that, we can turn to the practical proposals to implement a greater degree of devolution. That will require an enhancement, not a reduction, of the powers of the Secretary of, State and of the Welsh Office. Let us not make the mistake of either opting for the single transferable vote in Wales, which might produce in Scotland the present unstable conditions of the House of Commons, although probably not in Wales. I would not wish it upon Scotland.
Furthermore we must not fall for the bait of reducing Welsh or Scottish representation here at Westminster, because if we follow the combined wisdom of Kilbrandon, the great decisions regarding industry economy, health, welfare and the social services will continue to be taken in this House. The voice of Wales should be louder in this great legislative assembly.
On that note I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend and his team to their new office. I am confident that they will be worthy of the great movement which they represent.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I welcome you to the Welsh Day debate, albeit in a nonpolitical capacity? I am sure that hon. Members opposite will make up for the contribution you would have made had you remained on those benches.
I shall not take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley) tempting though that is because of his references to Kilbrandon. We had a reasonable chance last night to debate that and it was given a fair airing.
I am not going to follow the hon Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) either, except to refer to his comments on railways. I would certainly welcome the Welsh Office having responsibility for railways, and I thing that the hon. Gentleman is right in underlining the importance of air services to Wales and the need for improved roads to tourist centres.
I take the opportunity of congratulating the right hon. and learned Gentleman on his appointment as Secretary of State for Wales and wish him every success in his period of office. I congratulate also the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones) and the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) on their appointments as Under-Secretary. Perhaps we may look forward to an appointment of Minister of State rank in the Welsh Office before too long.
I should like to thank the previous Secretary of State for Wales for the work he did and also the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) in what was a very arduous task. I should also like to thank the previous Secretary of State for the welcome he gave to the new Members in this Chamber.
We had an opportunity earlier this week to discuss the broad problems of Wales and the steps required to overcome them. I want to concentrate today more on the problems of my constituency, and I trust that the Secretary of State will give as much attention to the problems I raise for my constituency as he did to the earlier remarks I made this week.
I turn, first to the comment made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman in opening the discussion. I welcome his statement concerning Government intervention regarding jobs for people. It is good news that nobody will have to suffer from the lack of job availability. This is good news, and I look forward to its implementation through-the Principality.
I note the comment that was made on Offa's Dyke and the economics of Wales and England. The economy of these

islands has great dependence one on the other, in the same way as the economy of Britain has great dependence on the economy of Europe and on the Atlantic economy. In the same way as perhaps Offa's Dyke has no relevance to the economy of Wales and England, neither does St. George's Channel have relevance to the economic life of Britain any more than does the Atlantic Ocean. This is an important fact at a time when large companies from all over the world are working in several countries and on several continents.
I listened with interest to the comments concerning oil and gas, and I look forward at the earliest possible opportunity to a further statement in this direction. Similarly I look forward to further details of the development authority for rural Wales when there is an opportunity for them to be made available.
We on this side of the House welcome the news about Rhayader and Blaenau Ffestiniog. I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) will refer to that if he gets the opportunity.
Reference has been made to the roads in Gwynedd and the need to bring Gwynedd closer in travelling time to the border. There is a great need for improvement in the roads along the North Wales coast, but we also hope that Cardiff will be brought closer to Gwynedd. There are two roads whose improvement would help this. One is the speeding up of the phase of the road between Cardiff and Merthyr between Abercanaid and Cefn Coed, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil will pay special attention to that. Secondly, if there could be improvements on the road between Dinas Mawddwy and Llangurig, this would help greatly in the communications between North and South Wales.
The Secretary of State made correct reference to the scandalous housing situation. This is something that many people in Wales are suffering from. I hope that the new Government will set a target of approximately 25,000 new houses per annum in Wales in order to overcome the problems that we have now. This needs a considerable effort, but I am sure the Government will make that effort and we look forward to seeing it bear fruit.
I also welcome the statement made concerning the elimination of grants for


second homes. This will be very good news in my own and many other constituencies which suffer this problem. I also welcome the fact that local authorities are to be urged to purchase derelict houses. I would hope that in due course the right hon. and learned Gentleman will have an opportunity to reconsider the 1967 Welsh Language Act in order to bring in the possibility of bilingualism as an alternative to equal validity within that.
I make reference to the Kilbrandon time scale, on which I tried to intervene earlier. As my hon. Friend the Member for Merioneth said last night, we are seeking a commitment on time scale in producing a White Paper. The Secretary of State for Employment has managed to do that for other legislation, saying that it will come out on 1st May. Last night it was suggested that a White Paper on this topic by 30th June would not be unreasonable, and hon. Members indicated their assent. If the Secretary of State were to give such an undertaking, we would be willing to withdraw our suggestion that the Government might be playing for time.
I turn now to matters concerning my constituency, one of the most important of which is employment. We have in Gwynedd an unemployment rate of between 6 per cent. and 8 per cent. We have problems in net migration, with perhaps an influx of retired people and an exodus of young people. We have low activity rates. This is shielded to some extent by the fact that school leavers may stay on longer than they want to, that earlier retirements are caused with no replacement work and that females, particularly married women who have reared a family, want to go back to work but do not have the opportunity to do so.
We also have the problem of underemployment. This is particularly relevant to the tourist industry which has a fairly short season in my part of Wales. As a result, resources are fully exploited for three or four months and are not fully used during the remainder of the year. There is a considerable range of under-utilised similar resources, and we look for an improvement there. We have had a rundown of slate and agriculture in my constituency as a result of all

these factors—unemployment, migration, activity rates and loss of jobs from the old industries.
We need in Gwynedd over the next five years approximately 5,000 new jobs. To obtain these we shall need a positive plan. We particularly need economic planning to achieve that. In this connection I should like to refer to the Trawsfynydd atomic power station. At the heyday of the construction of that power station there were approximately 4.500 people working there. This was a tremendous labour pool. It was allowed to fritter away, however, because there were no new schemes to take up the workers as they left the construction site.
I should like to underline that fact in the context of the Llanberis scheme. A parliamentary answer which was given suggested that the Llanberis scheme would be operational by 1981. In that event, between now and 1981 1,000 or 1,200 people will be leaving that construction site. It is very important that, as they leave, manufacturing industry should where possible take up a large part of that labour force.
I should also like to underline the importance of maximising the local participation in the construction of Llanberis. I believe that there is agreement that hon. Members opposite, when in government, wanted priority on this scheme to be given to local people. They wanted local labour exchanges to be approached, school leavers to be sought and advertisements to be placed in the local Press to attract local participation.
In the longer term, I should like to underline that when in 1981 the scheme comes to fruition—it will be employing perhaps 50 people at that stage—we should ensure that local people have been trained in the period between up to 1981 so that they can take up those jobs to the maximum possible extent.
In the Caernarvon constituency we need positive plans to solve the employment situation. One thing we should like to see is a new advance factory programme. We should certainly like to see advance factories in Caernarvon, Pwllheli, Porthmadog, Llanberis and Penygroes, as there is a demand in those areas. Industry could be set up and attracted there.
I should also like to see a little more imagination in the advance factory programme, and nursery factories brought into those areas, allowing units of 1,000 or 2,000 sq. ft. employing perhaps only half a dozen workers at the start. From these small acorns, I believe that large factories can grow. This has been successful in other areas—Canvey Island, for example—and it can be successful in solving our problems in Gwynedd as well. I hope that the local authority will take an initiative in this matter.
I think that the new Gwynedd council is very likely to do so in setting up an economic development department. I am sure that it will be seeking co-operation with the Welsh Office in the matter, appointing a full-time officer to take a positive rôle in attracting industry and encouraging the setting up of industry from local sources. I hope that the new local authority, together with the Welsh Development Corporation, through the DTI and in association with the Welsh Office, will liaise closely with the university at Bangor, where there is an excellent department of electronics and where there should be ideas that can be developed into employment possibilities.
There is considerable scope for the education programme of the local authority to give much more emphasis on the right technical and business education to help develop answers to our job needs. In this context the careers advice given in our Gwynedd schools is very important, and we look to Gwynedd council to give a lead.
So far as the physical aspects of attracting new industries are concerned, we hope that there will be an industrial park development in the Glan Menai area, with four or five satellite trading estates off it. That could provide the necessary facilities for industry to set up facilities in terms of infrastructure for industrial development. We hope also that in due course the Government will see the way clear to setting up a Welsh national development authority that will co-ordinate the work of industrial parks, not only in Gwynedd but in other parts of Wales.
Grants for industry have been mentioned by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is important that the present grant structure should be clari-

fied as quickly as possible. There is nothing worse for industry than uncertainty in that direction. I hope that a commitment can be given that at least the present level of grants will be maintained for a period of five years.
I welcome the intention to retain the regional employment premium, and I hope it can be sustained on a permanent basis. I hope also that the situation on grants emanating from the European regional fund can be clarified so that industrialists in Wales know what grants are available and how to take advantage of them.
The improvement of the environment is an important consideration in the Caernarvon constituency. Considerable work is being done on the industrial valleys of South Wales in clearing the spoil of the last industrial revolution. I urge the Secretary of State for Wales to give the same attention to the spoil that we have in Gwynedd. There is the spoil from the slate industry, a substance more inert than coal, and a considerable amount of clearance work is necessary in the Llanberis and Nantlle area.
Likewise, attention should be given to roads in the area. There obviously have to he priorities, but within the Caernarvon constituency I urge that attention be given to the Caernarvon-Bangor road, which is heavily used and very congested in the summer. In the village of Port Dinorwic there is a serious safety problem. I am sure that the Government will give consideration to pressing the matter.
In the Caernarvon constituency there is a severe housing problem. The figures for Wales have been referred to. There has been a decline in the number of houses started in the public sector, from 7,028 in 1969 to 2,992 in 1973. I hope that this trend can be reversed. In Caernarvonshire the figures show a corresponding decline, from 212 in 1970 to 40 in 1972. The situation is serious and is made worse by the pressure of second houses. I hope that the programme to which the Government have referred this afternoon will help in this direction. When a house was offered by a housing association to rent recently in my constituency, 80 young married couples applied. There is great pressure on housing in Caernarvon, and we shall


welcome any steps to alleviate the situation.
I wish the Government every success. They have set themselves targets and they have made good intentions. I hope that those intentions do not lead to treading the road to hell, and that we shall be able to applaud the Government's achievements in one, two or three years, whenever the next General Election comes.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Leo Abse: When I heard the former Secretary of State giving his account of the splendid legacy with which he has endowed the present Secretary of State for Wales, I realised that he had taken as his vantage point his activities during the election campaign in Hendon.
I do not imagine that anybody who participated in the election in Wales would take anything but a different view. Indeed, I found that there was only one beneficial side effect to the disastrous confrontation politics of the last Government. It meant that we regained the opportunity during that election to meet our constituents—not in public meetings, lodges or at the factory gates, but on their doorsteps and in their homes.
For my generation, remembering as I do our first candidatures—in my case when I was 21—it was just like old times in South Wales. Everybody was at home. Nobody was working. We had had nothing like it since the vicious days of the 1930s, when the unemployed used to receive us in those nostalgic days. Politicians were received at the door with real enthusiasm, welcoming a call from a candidate as a diversion from what otherwise would be dreary and purposeless days.
At this election, of course, the miners were on strike. The steelworkers in my area had been locked out by a management so self-deluding that they evidently believed that the Spencer works belonged to them personally and not to the nation. With a flourish of histrionics, the Tory Government, not foreseeing that their planned melodrama was to be mocked off the stage, had unnecessarily insisted that there should be a three-day week.
The nation, therefore, was going down the sink and everybody was at home,

becoming increasingly hard up, gardening and watching television. It was a sorry spectacle. Is it surprising that our electorates, when all of us were to meet them to an extent denied to us for such a long time, were lacking serenity? I do not wish to be misunderstood in recalling, as I have, the calls made on the unemployed in the 1930s. That was, of course, a very different world.
Modern nationalised mines with all their many hazards and discomforts, are very different from the rat holes of yesterday's privately owned pits. The men at the National Coal Board are certainly not the pitiless pit owners who once exploited our people. There is no comparison between the conditions of yester years, with grim forges, and the almost surgical-like steelworks of today. Nor is there any comparison between the wages received by the fathers of our young steelworkers and those that happily their sons now receive.
There is no comparison between the bare houses of our people in other times and the little palaces which are dwelt in by those who live, as so many of my electorate do, in a new town which, despite its blemishes, is a signal tribute to the merits of public enterprise. Those who remember the past, and the poverty, neglect and sickness with which it is associated, will agree that that has now been mitigated by the National Health Service and the National Insurance schemes, which were established in the teeth of the Opposition, who resented such public intervention.
Everyone has been speaking about material gains, due largely to the application of basic Socialist concepts that have brought such huge capital investment, largely through nationalisation, into Wales. The same concepts have brought the Welfare State. Despite all this, who can dispute that our Welsh society today lacks serenity? Who can dispute that our society lacks the cohesion that we had in times of adversity?
I hope that this is not a middle-aged man's lament. It is, rather, a recognition that somehow the sense of community, the culture of the small pits, the small forge, the enclosed valley, the small township, is threatened by huge, large-scale industries, mostly nationalised industries. This sense of community is


threatened, too, by a spawning bureaucracy that is a consequence of more and more interventionist policies which, largely out of compassion or a desire for greater amenity, have come into existence.
Indeed, they are symbolised by our capital city which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in your lifetime and I in mine have seen as a port but which is now a huge administrative city. The strength of Wales and its past has been its sense of belonging, its sense of community. So certain have we been in the value of intimacy, of mutual aid and kinship that through our Jimmy Griffiths and Nye Bevans we have instructed the whole United Kingdom and caused it, through our Welfare State, to be institutionalised.
We have institutionalised what are essential parts of our way of life. Scale has come and with it anonymity, alienation. Precisely because we have been so dependent upon community we tolerate the resultant anomie far less well than any other group in Britain and yet, perforce, because we have secured more public investment, largely through the nationalised industries, than any other area, the threat to the values which found their most natural expression in the tacit syndicalism of the Welsh Labour movement is even greater than in most areas. The result is that we feel that we are threatened more than most.
I sometimes think that Wales defines a democrat as someone who believes passionately in Government by elected committees. That is what Kilbrandon was about. We are finding that Wales is increasingly receiving government by anonymity. It is not surprising that there is unease and that, therefore, there are some who foolishly yield to the Welsh nationalist slogan of "Stop the world I want to get off" or that some can be attracted by the drop-out philosophy of Plaid, or that there are others who, out of peevishness or disenchantment yield to the shabby optimism of the Liberal Party.
I felt it symbolic that the first call I made on the Secretary of State for Wales following his appointment was to hand to him a petition signed by thousands of my constituents protesting at the interminable delay in the construction of a desperately needed by-pass at New Inn. Without it my valley is being strangled, and without it those going to work in the industries in the south find, when work is

done, that there are intolerable delays before they can get home. Those living in Cwmbran and working in the nylon factory or any other factory in the north find their commuting as difficult as any experienced by those who have the misery to work in London. Meantime, the villagers of New Inn suffer the dangers, noise and serious inconvenience as their narrow main road becomes daily choked with traffic.
I will not burden the House with the history of the delays over the construction of this by-pass. I attended upon the Secretary of State and burdened him. I am grateful to him for his patience and for the concern that he showed. I am confident that it will mean that the Under-Secretary, in reply to the debate, will give without equivocation the anticipated programme so that the people of my valley may understand that the incoming Government fully appreciate the urgency of the matter and intend to deal with it in a different and far less dilatory method than the outgoing Government.
The relevance of my drawing attention to this road delay is that it is a delay that has arisen and grown as a result of the sloth of officialdom. It illustrates only too well the feelings of alienation to which a community can succumb when men whom they believe belong to the nation become men without identity or when organisations which people had believed belonged to the nation become unascertainable and unaccountable.
In this case the faceless men, as they are seen by my constituents, in the Roads Division of the Welsh Office, and the anonymous bureaucrats in British Railways have together managed to thwart all the considerable efforts of elected representatives to give firm information to their constituents about this road. Promises received become hedged, if not broken. A Kafka-like situation develops when every date becomes postponed as soon as it is almost reached. It is not only British Railways among nationalised industries which can show, in this case in the form of tardiness, an arrogance towards the nation.
Recent events with the British Steel Corporation at Llanwern prompt us to remind the executive that those of us who fought to place the industry under public control—and such people are not usually


included among those now in control of the management of the works—did not do so so that private capitalism could be replaced by State capitalism. It is a measure of the degeneration of the early concepts of the Labour movement that we could find such a situation inside Wales, a situation when an arrogant management could, during the election campaign, write a letter to thousands of my constituents, to thousands of the constituents of the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) and constituents elsewhere—a letter which was a mixture of crass intimidation and exhortation, a document which was bound to be inflammatory and which clearly found its cue in the equally obdurate attitude of the then Prime Minister.
When we hear that there is to be a review of the programme of the nationalised steel industry's activities in Wales, and when the Secretary of State gives a clear indication that he will be rigidly observing the investment programmes, we hope, too, that he will be bearing in mind that there is increasingly a need, determined not simply on economic grounds but by the psychological wants of the nation, to make certain that in continuing our process of nationalisation we begin by truly nationalising the nationalised industries and by humanising those industries so that there should be no opinion going abroad that what we want to do when we extend the area of public control is to create carbon copies of what will become dangerously like instruments of State capitalism, accountable to no one, apparently, except themselves.
It is dismaying that in my valley the worst landlord is the National Coal Board. That is not an experience known only to myself. It is shared by far too many.
I hope that the Secretary of State will understand that, because we have been the creators of nationalised industry, because we understand, as the men in the nationalised industries understand, the positive benefits that come from nationalisation, that does not mean that the Labour movement should give blank cheques to executives who have never had the ideals and concepts which inspired the campaigns to bring about nationalised industry. It is undesirable

that, simply because commercial requirements are forced on to nationalised industries in Wales, those industries should slacken their social responsibilities.
In my constituency the state of the NCB-owned housing at Garnyrhiw, Forgeside and Varteg brings no credit to the NCB. Equally, when I go to the door of a house occupied by a coughing miner who is in receipt of severance pay because he has had to leave work at an early age, I find that that man is in receipt of a derisory pension which is totally inadequate. When we consider how to shape the wages structure and the investment policy of the coal industry in the Principality we should not forget those who have served the industry so well, who have loyally supported the Labour movement and who at the end of their days and in the autumn of their lives are receiving such miserable pittances.
There is alienation in Wales, and to some degree the great material advances that have been spoken of have become ashes in the mouths of our people. It is not enough merely to identify such problems, we must apply our minds to how we can act as healing agencies in this fractured Principality, even if it is a long way from the tribal world of which we were reminded by the Secretary of State.
I do not wish to intrude on the affairs of my hon. Friends the Members for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) and Aberdare (Mr. Evans), but what is happening in Hirwaun, as they would be the first to understand, affects all of us. It is a sad commentary on what is occurring there that there is a wide gap between the nationalised industry and the people of that area. It concerns us all because, as I am sure the people in that area understand, the prosperity of every other constituency may depend on the availability of gas supplies. Without attempting to apportion responsibility, I must say to the Secretary of State that, although he will be busy resolving the immediate problems of the grim legacy of his inheritance from a bungling Government, the Labour Government will fail unless we have a longer-term approach as well as shorter aims.
Part of our strategy must be to achieve the greater accountability of our nationalised industry and greater control


over it. In taking new holdings in Celtic oil we must not think only in terms of structures such as those which exist in Italy, where holding companies begin to take over the province of private enterprise. There, too, there has developed a gap between the nation and the executive of the State-controlled companies and accountability is lost. When the new administration is able to take breath, I ask that, apart from the urgent inquiries on steel and gas and the departmental review of coal, there should be some form of scrutiny, whether by way of a commission or otherwise, to make certain that the industry is felt to belong to us, and that the men who work in it do not feel disgruntled but act as missionaries for the Socialist belief that we held and still hold and by which we intend to shape the Wales of tomorrow.

Several hon. Members: Several hon. Members rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Before calling the next speaker, I ask hon. Members to realise that unless they exercise greater self-discipline many hon. Members will be disappointed at not being called.

7.56 p.m.

Mr. Geraint Morgan: I shall certainly apply self-discipline to myself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall direct my observations to one topic only. Before doing so, however, I extend my congratulations to the new Secretary of State and to the junior Ministers in the Welsh Office upon their appointments. I wish them well in dealing with the many problems that they will have to face in Wales.
May I take this opportunity, too, of congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Grist) on his able maiden speech. He is no stranger to the House although up to now he has come here, as he put it himself, in a mute capacity. I am sure that he will make many valuable contributions to our proceedings in years to come.
Bearing in mind what you said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will not allow myself to be tempted to speak on the subject of devolution, much as I should like to do so. No doubt we shall have plenty of opportunity to do so in the life of this Parliament.
Bearing in mind what the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Davies) said about the right of an individual Member on Welsh Day to choose any relevant subject dealing with Welsh affairs, I wish to speak about an important issue relating to communications in North Wales. I hope that I shall have the sympathy of the Secretary of State when I do so. I say that with some confidence, because I well remember that one of the first problems he had to deal with as a new Member of the House in 1959 was the traffic bottleneck that then existed at Port Talbot. As I am sure he has by now realised, and as the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones) will have realised long ago, North Wales also has its bottleneck problems, but unfortunately ours seem to take rather longer to resolve than do those of our compatriots in the South.
The matter I wish to raise is the route of the proposed Colleon expressway which particularly affects two constituencies, that of my hon. Friend the Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) and my own, Indirectly it is of great importance to all the constituencies of North Wales but ours are the ones most concerned because of the degree of destruction and blighting of property with which we are threatened. I shall not trespass upon the preserves of my hon. Friend the Member for Conway, and I propose to limit my observations in this context to what has happened, and has not happened, within my constituency.
The story so far of this projected expressway is a long and, I regret to say, lamentable one. I hope that the fact that I have drawn attention to this matter in this debate will serve as a spur to the Secretary of State to resolve the problem as a matter of considerable urgency. I do not wish to bore the House with all the details of what has occurred since the expressway was first mooted way back in 1968. Suffice it for me to deal with the broad outline.
The original proposal, as it appeared in. 1968, involved four possible routes running straight through Colwyn Bay, which is the most populous town on the North Wales coast, and the adoption of any of these routes would have involved appreciable destruction and blighting of property. The route pre-


ferred by the Welsh Office at that time was not quite as forbidding as the other three, but it would, if adopted, have caused dislocation enough in all conscience.
Since there was considerable and immediate objection to any of the proposed routes from a large section of the inhabitants of Colwyn Bay, I thought it right to ask a distinguished right hon. Member of this House—now occupying the position of Mr. Deputy Speaker—who was then the Secretary of State for Wales to be good enough to review the position generally. Fortuitously I had an opportunity to do so shortly after the proposals were published because we happened to have a Welsh Day debate in October 1968 following the September in which the proposals first appeared. The then Secretary of State was good enough to agree to reconsider the matter and I was grateful to him. The local authority concerned shortly afterwards formally expressed disapproval by an overwhelming majority of the preferred route and, by inference, of the other proposed routes as well.
Nobody thought at that time, in October 1968, that reconsideration of the expressway route would go on for years and years and would still be unresolved in 1974. It was not until the end of July 1972 that an alternative proposal emerged from the Welsh Office, and that one, I regret to say, was even more unacceptable than the original preferred route. If adopted, it would cause appreciably more disturbance to property than the one proposed in 1968. For that reason it met with solid local opposition. This time the local authority rejected it unanimously, not merely by a large majority as on the previous occasion.
Now, although the new proposed route was announced and publicised nearly two years ago, no draft order has yet been made. Until that is done, it is impossible under existing procedures for a public inquiry to be held. A public inquiry is imperative in this case to enable the local authority and members of the public, particularly those who are directly affected, to air their objections and, furthermore, so that the most recent evidence with regard to possible alternative routes may be considered. In due course objectors will be entitled as of right to a public inquiry. What I am really asking for

is that this inquiry should be held sooner rather than later.
Since the preferred route of 1972 was made known, the local authority, the Colwyn Bay Borough Council, has commissioned consultants to investigate possible alternative routes, and the consultants have produced an interim report in which they reject the present preferred route in favour of an inland route. I am also informed that the Welsh Office itself appears to have had doubts about the wisdom of the expressway route both inside Colwyn Bay and just outside, at Llanddulas.
What I and others find disturbing is that there are ominous signs that the Welsh Office is acting as if the preferred route of 1972, subject to certain minor alterations, is cut and dried, whatever may emerge at the public inquiry. Land is being acquired and piecemeal improvements are being made to the neighbouring section of the A55 trunk road. My plea to the Secretary of State is that a public inquiry should be held as soon as possible and that, if necessary, a draft order should be made to expedite matters.
Secondly, I believe that no action should be taken that might prejudice the adoption of an alternative route pending the holding of that inquiry, and in particular that the Welsh Office should not in the meantime commit itself to any piecemeal improvements to the A55 in the vicinity of Colwyn Bay—however desirable they might be in themselves—that might in the end have the effect of ruling out better and less destructive routes. These are reasonable requests and I hope that the Secretary of State will have no difficulty in acceding to them.
There is one other smaller but nevertheless important matter that I wish to mention. It so happens that an excellent official model has been prepared of the preferred route, but for some reason the Welsh Office has shown great reluctance in putting it on exhibition to the public. Surely it is only reasonable that members of the public whose homes are threatened should at least have the right to be informed in the clearest possible terms of what they are faced with. One reason given by the Welsh Office for its coyness in displaying the model is that no draft order has yet been made and


that the route is therefore only a preferred route and not the final adopted route. Quite frankly, I find such an attitude impossibly legalistic and totally unrealistic. Therefore, I hope that the Secretary of State will sweep away any remaining objection to the model being put on show.
What I wish to stress most of all is the necessity for settling this thorny problem satisfactorily, with due regard to public opinion, in the shortest possible time. I know that the Secretary of State will appreciate that many citizens in Colwyn Bay have had the dual swords of dispossession and blight hanging over them for nearly six years, with no present prospect—unless speedy action is taken—of any relief for some considerable time to come. It is an impossible situation, and it must be remedied.
The Secretary of State in his comprehensive speech said that we had a long way to go in Wales to achieve an effective road programme. I entirely agree. When I asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman a short while ago not to permit piecemeal improvements of the A55 in the area of Colwyn Bay pending a public inquiry, I was not seeking to discourage him from effecting necessary improvements elsewhere on that trunk road. The A55 has been a disgrace for years and we in North Wales have been very conscious of this. We have not an inch of motorway in the North and even our modest demands for a dual carriageway for our main coastal trunk road have not been met. All the local authorities in North Wales are united in calling for a better communications system up to the English border. Nobody interested in the tourist industry—an increasingly important element in the Welsh economy—can fail to compare our dismal A55 and other roads in North Wales with the splendid approach roads to English tourist centres. One such English tourist centre that immediately springs to my mind is Blackpool.
I appreciate that the scope of road improvements must be restricted by Government economies, but I hope that the Secretary of State will give high priority to the betterment of the A55. I also wish to put in a plea for the provision of an adequate north-south road, which has been a crying necessity

for so long. So far there has been mere tinkering with this problem.
I said at the outset of my remarks that I would not allow myself to be tempted to speak about devolution and I shall continue to restrain myself. I wish to make only one comment. Whatever our views about devolution, we are all, on both sides of the House, surely in agreement on one thing; namely, that Wales is now one administrative unit. Let that fact at least be reflected in our communications system.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. Caerwyn E. Roderick: At the outset, Mr. Deputy Speaker, may I say how very pleased I am to see you occupying the Chair. I have no doubt that you will continue to keep me in order as you have done over the years that we have known each other. We shall miss your humour from the Dispatch Box, but I have no doubt that you will have plenty of opportunity to demonstrate it from the Chair.
I want also to welcome my right hon. and learned Friend to his new position as Secretary of State, and I can do no better than wish him success to equal that of his Labour predecessors who distinguished themselves in that appointment.
I wish to draw attention to a number of matters of specific interest to Mid-Wales, and I want first to bring to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the problem of rates. It will be no surprise to him to hear that. I congratulate him on obtaining an additional £16 million for Wales in the form of rate support grant, but he will realise that that is of little comfort to my constituents since, by equalising the rate relief on the domestic element, he has decreased the relief to Brecknock by 4·5p in the pound and that to Radnor by 6p in the pound.
The situation was already bleak in these districts, and no one would have dreamt that it would be made worse. In effect, it means that sparsity weighting has now been ignored and that the difficulties suffered by a rural population will be further compounded.
The cost of living is higher in this area. For example, a loaf of bread costs 1 p more than elsewhere. There are no bus services. People have to own cars if


they want to be mobile. At the same time, average wages are £5 a week less than they are in the United Kingdom.
As if this were not enough, we have the massive new water charges to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) referred. The area is covered by the South-East Brecon-shire and the Radnorshire and North Breconshire Water Boards, and they are to suffer increases of 297 and 257 per cent. respectively. That is four and three-and-a-half times the water rates that they previously paid. That is on the domestic tariff. On metered supplies, the rates will be four and three times as big respectively. The rate support grant domestic relief was intended to offset this. We now find that areas with the lowest increases in water charges are to benefit more from relief.
Can my right hon. and learned Friend explain why neighbouring districts in the same new county, such as Montgomery, should be treated so differently? Montgomery is to receive 5p more in the form of relief, although its water rate will be 4·1p with a meter charge of 16·7p per 1,000 gallons. In Radnor the rates will be 20p and 60p per 1,000 gallons. Montgomery conies under the Severn and Trent Regional Water Authority. Brecknock and Radnor are in the Welsh National Water Authority. There may be a lesson to be learned here.
Those figures are a sufficient argument for the Secretary of State to call for an immediate inquiry into the estimates of the Welsh National Water Authority. The Welsh Office has not scrutinised these figures sufficiently, in my view.
On 1st February, my hon. and learned Friend's predecessor said:
The precise factors influencing particular charges are matters for the Welsh National Water Development Authority."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st February 1974; Vol. 868, c. 201.]
I say that they are matters for us all, and not simply for the Welsh National Water Development Authority. If an inquiry is made into these matters, I implore my right hon. and learned Friend to take steps to counter this trend. I am sure that he will recognise that these areas of low average earnings can ill afford such treatment. It is impossible to explain to my constituents why they who

supply so much water to various parts of the United Kingdom, should have to pay more for their water than other people do. If my right hon. and learned Friend sets up an inquiry, he will do well to consider the whole method of costing our water supplies.
I was glad to receive my right hon. Friend's reply to my Question on Monday on growth town policy. He said:
The Government intend to press ahead vigorously with the development of the growth towns."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March 1974; Vol. 870, c. 645.]
I am confident that he will carry out that promise. But in case he loses his nerve or in case his advisers deflect him from this purpose, I serve him notice that I shall be here as a constant reminder to him of his words.
In an exchange following that answer the right hon. and learned Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas) asked whether my right hon. and learned Friend's attention had been drawn to the announcement made last summer about an intensification of growth town policy in Mid-Wales. However we ask for more than announcements. That was only an announcement last summer. We shall judge the Secretary of State by deeds and not by words.
I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's announcement about the new tenant for the factory at Rhayader. It is appropriate to refer to Rhayader, which of course is one of the nominated growth towns. I have today received telegrams from the district council and the parish council and messages from others about their fears for the future of postal services in Rhayader. The head postmaster told me this week of his proposals to change the present post office from corporation to sub-office status during the year. Under the proposals the sorting office will also be closed, with delivery and collection work being transferred to Llandrindod Wells.
I am told also that the electricity showrooms are to close. What is more, the services of the registration officer have been lost. There are fears about the ambulance service. This is no way to treat a growth town. What confidence can industrialists and individuals have in such an area?
Before the trend goes too far, I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to


intervene. I know that his powers are limited, but he might remind all concerned that the plans for the area are for expansion and not retraction. Will my right hon. and learned Friend contact the Post Office? More than services are at stake. There is status at stake. The status of a growth town is at stake.
Population shifts in Wales have been mentioned. Inward migration to Mid-Wales has been discussed. I am not confident that we are attracting the right age groups. I have come across many older people who have moved to Mid-Wales to retire. We welcome them, but I am not sure that we are retaining our young people as we should.
Finally I pay tribute to the Mid-Wales Development Corporation and its officers. They have done a magnificent job in Newtown. On 15th March 1967, in the Welsh Grand Committee, the then Secretary of State for Wales, my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey, said:
The first task of that corporation—and I stress that it is only the first task—will be to double the size of Newtown."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Welsh Grand Committee, 15th March 1967, c. 8.]
That was its first task. For the past three years we have been asking for an extension of its remit so that it might get to work on other towns. I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to ensure that there is no jealousy of the power and success of the corporation.
I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's statement on Monday that
We are beginning to ensure that there is a suitable body in mid-Wales to develop the interests of the area."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March 1974; Vol. 870, c. 646.]
I would prefer to substitute the phrase
… comprehensively to produce a more balanced economy in the area".

8.18 p.m.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: In the last Parliament, I sat mute on Welsh days listening to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with critical appreciation. I congratulate you on reversing our rôles in a way which adds great dignity and honour to yourself.
I add my own congratulations to the Secretary of State and his colleagues. I wish them well in office. The best compliment that I can pay the right hon. and learned Gentleman is to say that I wish to refer to the latter part of his speech

where he discussed the Government's decision to initiate discussions in Scotland and Wales of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Constitution and to bring forward proposals in a White Paper.
Whatever those proposals may be—we have already received indications from the Lord President of the Council that they will not be the entire scheme of legislative devolution most favoured by the Commission—we must ensure that they are acceptable to the Welsh people as a whole. To implement such proposals without the full support of the people most affected would be disastrous from every standpoint.
If the renegotiation of our terms of entry into the Common Market is to be put to the British people, then any major change in Welsh membership of the United Kingdom should be put to the Welsh people. The Queen's Speech, in its reference to Rhodesia, states that the Government
will agree to no settlement which is not supported by the African majority.
Surely a similar principle should govern any major change, if there is to be one, in the constitutional position of Wales. The people of Wales would never forgive this Parliament if it changed the system of government in Wales for reasons which had more to do with party political advantage than a genuine desire to provide better government.
There are those in Wales—I am sorry that some of them should be absent now—who feel strongly that the fact of Welsh nationhood demands some form of independent political expression as of right. I respect that feeling. However, it does not blind me to the political reality that not everyone in Wales shares that belief. Indeed, not everyone in Wales shares to the same extent the sense of belonging to our "old and haughty nation", as Milton described it. Yet the government of Wales affects everyone in it. Therefore, any changes in the way that Wales is governed must surely be acceptable to the vast majority, if not all.
I think that I should gently warn the Government and, indeed, the House that the people of Wales will look very closely at the economic and financial implications of any proposed constitutional changes. We have a saying in Wales which you,


Mr. Deputy Speaker, will understand, Diwedd y gan yw y geiniog. Literally translated it means, "There is a penny at the end of the song." In other words, there is a financial aspect to any performance.
The reaction in Wales to any constitutional changes will depend on the tangible benefits and advantages that can be expected as a result of those changes. We should like to be better off, certainly not worse off, as a result of any changes. There is an understandable fear in Wales that the latter might be the case. We should be well aware of this fear.
We are deeply aware of what the Memorandum of Dissent calls
substantial economic and financial support
given to Wales by England. We certainly do not want to put that support at risk by losing some of the political rights already gained which have proved their worth.
I was glad to hear the Secretary of State give an assurance, following the Lord President's remarks in the House recently, that the Government would wish to retain the Secretary of State for Wales as well as the Secretary of State for Scotland. But may I press the right hon. and learned Gentleman a shade further. I should be glad of an assurance that the office will be kept independent of other Cabinet appointments. We know that there is a suggestion here and there in the Kilbrandon Report that the office of Secretary of State for Wales might be attached to another office. We should regard that as a regressive step. We fought long and hard for a voice for Wales in the Cabinet, and it would be regressive if we were to lose that voice now for some chimerical gains whose worth have not been tried, let alone proved.
I was glad, too, that the Lord President was explicit on the point that the Government
would not wish to see the number of Members of Parliament from Scotland and Wales to the House reduced."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March 1974; Vol. 870, c. 800.]
It is here that the major economic and financial decisions affecting Wales are and will be taken.
Although the Government give the impression that they are open minded on the Royal Commission's proposals, they have

clearly closed their minds to certain possibilities, about which I am glad. My personal preference is for those recommendations which focus most sharply on the problem of making government more effective in the practical sense of bringing the remedial power of government closer to areas of economic and social need which, if unattended, soon become areas of discontent.
There are, in my experience, few such areas that could not be transformed into Gardens of Eden if sufficient governmental power could be brought to bear upon them. The reasons why this does not happen more often are not that the needs are inadequately represented to government, but that, first, the resources of government are not limitless in themselves, and, secondly, that their use is governed by common economic and social sense.
Almost every problem raised in the debate today will prove the point that I am making. It is not the Government's lack of knowledge of these problems that prevents their solution but the limitations on resources that I have already indicated.
Demands on the Government always exceed their ability to meet those demands, despite enormous increases in public expenditure. This is true of local and national government and it will be true of regional government as well.
It is argued that regional government may be beneficial in ensuring that regional priorities regarding the use of resources are ordered according to the wishes of the people of the region. The argument has some validity, but we should be foolish to imagine that the establishment of regional government in itself would be the solution of our problems and the beginning of a new millenium.
I should now like to refer briefly to certain constituency problems that illustrate my general theme. First, agriculture, for which the Secretary of State for Wales has a limited responsibility. The problems of the pig and beef producers, the rise in the costs of feeding stuffs and the high prices paid for store cattle and calves in the recent past, are well known to us. I do not know to what extent the problem of the beef producers will be alleviated, particularly by the talks going on in Brussels, in view of the attitude being taken by the Government.
I am also concerned about the problems of sheep farmers and the insufficiency of the guaranteed price for wool which is now about 9p per lb. below the world price.
It is fair to ask what representations the right hon. and learned Gentleman has made to his right hon. Friend about the plight of farmers in Wales. They are the backbone of our rural communities and their well-being is all-important to us. Does the Secretary of State have enough authority over the agricultural sector? Should not further functions concerning agriculture be transferred to him.
There is also the question of higher education, which particularly concerns me because of the University College of North Wales at Bangor. I recollect that when responsibility for primary and secondary education was transferred to the Secretary of State for Wales, under the previous Government, the Opposition were highly critical of the division of responsibility. Do the Government intend to do anything about it now? There are distinctive Welsh problems in higher education, such as the claim of North Wales, as opposed to Swansea, for a medical school, which I believe is currently a matter for the University Grants Commission and the Department of Education and Science, rather than for the Welsh Office.

Mr. Ifor Davies: The important distinction is that the Swansea case has the full backing of a Royal Commission which spent three years considering the matter.

Mr. Roberts: I accept that.
Finally I turn to employment. I remind the Secretary of State of a letter dated 18th March which he should have received by now from the Caernarvonshire and Anglesey Manufacturing Association, which comprises a dozen companies in that area. The association is concerned about the effect of the Llanberis hydroelectric scheme on local work forces.
I hope the Secretary of State will look into the matter closely and try to ensure that the work force required for the Llanberis scheme is built up from areas where unemployment is heaviest rather than from workers already employed in local factories.
I take rather a different view on the employment situation in my constituency and in North-West Wales from that of the hon. Member for Caernarvonshire (Mr. Wigley), as I understand from the Caernarvonshire and Anglesey Manufacturing Association that there is a shortage of skilled labour in the area. Many firms are afraid of losing their employees to the hydroelectric scheme.
I believe I have said enough to suggest that it is necessary to transfer further functions to the Welsh office to enable it to bring Government closer to the people. It is our job as Members of Parliament to bring the needs of the people to the attention of Government. Whether we do this adequately—I am sure we all do our best, according to our lights—is a separate question from that of the action, or inaction, of Government following our representations. It does not always follow that the stronger the representation the more prompt and gratifying the response.
To say that there was a certain lack of agreement last night in the debate on the Kilbrandon report would be the understatement of the year. I shall not add further to that except to suggest that when we talk of a new elected assembly in Wales it might help us to think in terms of the individual member of that assembly and ask what he should do that we cannot do ourselves by way of representing our constituents.
There is a danger of quantitative overrepresentation, with all the different tiers of local government, and perhaps we should be more concerned about the quality of representation. Many of us have experience of dealing with constituents' problems that strictly speaking should not have been our concern—for instance, housing and similar matters.
I shall approach any proposals which the Government bring forward from the basic standpoint of how they will better the representation and government of the individual subject. It is a Tory standpoint and highly relevant in the context of Wales.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Jeffrey Thomas: I am delighted, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we are able to address you as the occupant of the Chair. We miss you greatly in our counsels but our loss is the gain of the House of Commons. Should you


ever tire of your onerous duties, you would be warmly welcomed if you returned to the conflict-free peace and calm of the Welsh table.
I also pay warm and sincere tribute to the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, who made his debut in the House today. It was an inspiring speech which augurs well for Wales. Having listened to him this afternoon we know that the Welsh Office is in good hands.
By a curious chance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you once described Abertillery as paradise. You said that it reminded you of paradise because it took so long to get there. Unhappily, that position has not changed. I refer to the A467 road from Newport to Brynmawr. I first raised this matter in an Adjournment debate in December 1972 and I have been raising it ever since, both in the House, with Ministers of the last administration, and at Monmouthshire County Council. The situation is serious.
In reply to a letter of mine dated 1st February 1972 the then Minister of State agreed that the question of the road was of considerable importance, yet nothing happened. Consultants were to have published a report on land use transportation in Gwent in 1972, yet they did so only a few weeks ago. I emphasise that they recommend that this highly important A467 should be upgraded and designated as a through road.
We must have a new road from Newport to Brynmawr. As long ago as March 1972 the former Secretary of State for Wales stated in a letter to me that there was a very real need for early improvement of the road. Therefore, the need for improvement is not in dispute.
However, the position is now so bad that bus drivers, lorry drivers and drivers of all kinds should be paid danger money or some other compensation for having to face the hazards of driving up the pass from Newport to Nant-y-glo. It is one of the most disgraceful roads in the Principality and it has a deterrent effect on potential industrial developers.
There has been one serious accident on the road already. Although there was no loss of life, that was purely fortuitous. The road is in a highly dangerous con-

dition. I am particularly concerned about the hundreds of schoolchildren who have to brave this dreadful road day after day in their school buses. Unless this is treated as a matter of the greatest urgency, we could well be faced with the kind of tragedy which one is almost afraid to contemplate. It is for these reasons that I beg my right hon. and learned Friend to treat the road as a special case and, if necessary, to allocate extra money to the new Gwent County Council so that it can begin the job as soon as possible.
I turn now to the question of the Kilbrandon Report. I am convinced that the overwhelming majority of the people of Wales are against separatism and against any form of legislative assembly with powers which would weaken the sinews of the people of Wales at Westminster. Apart from any other fact, it would not only be a further onerous burden on the taxpayer but would be a fraud on him because all major decisions would still have to be taken here at Westminster. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in what has been laughingly described as the "London Government", would still have his fingers on the purse strings and would still be calling the financial tune.
If ever a report was ill-conceived, it was the Kilbrandon Report. After a long and querulous period of gestation, the commission finally gave birth to what can only be described as a mess of pottage, a veritable dog's dinner, and I very much hope that it will not be used as an excuse to throw a few bones to the nationalists.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said on Monday, in the debate on the Gracious Speech, that before conclusions are reached discussions are to take place with leading figures in Wales. I hope that the voices of the people of Gwent and Glamorgan in particular, the areas of the highest population concentration—and, let it be said, with a record a great loyalty to the Labour movement over a very long period—will be heard and taken into account before any decisions are made.
I was glad to hear the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Evans) in connection with the rejection of the Llantrisant new town proposal. Could the Secretary of State


deploy part, if not all, of the £260 million earmarked for that project in the valleys and consider, in contrast to the previous Secretary of State's churlish reaction to the Llantrisant inspector's report, the proposal for a regional plan for South Wales and the valleys? I have never understood why we are the only region in the United Kingdom which has no proper strategy and where the planning is haphazard and piecemeal.
The matter which is perhaps the most important and compelling problem facing Wales at present is the question of the supply of gas for industrial purposes. I am glad to hear that discussions are to take place this week between the action committee at Hirwaun and representatives of the gas board. We wish those discussions well. We hope that the forces of reconciliation will prevail. But it is essential that the facts should be known. We are now using six times as much gas as we did in 1970. In order to add to the availability of gas supplies, and for emergency purposes, it is vital that Wales Gas should install storage tanks.
It is a fact, although an incredible one, that we are the only region in Great Britain without a single storage tank. Before Christmas I discovered to my horror that about 1,200 jobs were to be lost to my constituency because Wales Gas had informed the firms concerned that it could not guarantee adequate supplies. I later discovered that no fewer than 152 firms had been written to in similar terms by officers and officials of Wales Gas. It has been estimated that unless we have the tanks about 160,000 jobs will be affected in South Wales alone during the next five years. This picture has been confirmed independently by both the Department of Industry in Wales and the Welsh CBI.
It is against that background that I welcome the talks which will take place this week. I want to say nothing that will be of any embarrassment to those taking part in the discussions. But many have admired the stand taken by the people of Hirwaun. Many of us have had the greatest understanding and sympathy. I know that the people concerned realise that it is now a matter of supreme importance. It is a desperate problem, a Welsh problem. Many thousands of

workers throughout South Wales are affected.
Tomorrow I have the privilege of opening a 200-acre industrial site at Penyfan. If firms will not come to Penyfan because they cannot obtain gas supplies, the whole thing will be a hollow sham. I want it to be understood that that is perhaps the starting point, and that unless we get the gas thousands of people in Monmouthshire will face grave problems. I know that all hon. Members wish those concerned a fair wind, and hope that a way can be found round the impasse.

8.47 p.m.

Mr. David Gibson-Watt: In taking part briefly in the debate, I wish to add my congratulations to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your appointment to your present position.
The debate has run on lines of other Welsh debates which I and other hon. Members have known for many years. It has been a positive debate, in which hon. Members have raised particular problems. I wish to touch on only three.
First, agriculture was raised by the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts). The present picture of agriculture may be patchy, but it is not all bad. The position of the pig and cattle producers is difficult, but the milk producers have been helped to a large extent by the latest award in the price review. There has never been a time when sheep have done better in Wales. Long may this continue.
I congratulate the new Secretary of State on his appointment. His responsibilities include some responsibility for agriculture in Wales. I urge him to strengthen the arm of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries in all his negotiations, whether at home or in Brussels. None of us knows what will happen in Brussels. We only hope that the results will be good for our country. I do not wish to say anything which would hamper the efforts of the Minister and his colleagues, the Secretary of State for Wales and the Secretary of State for Scotland, who have a particular responsibility in this respect.
There has not been a great deal of discussion in the debate about the environment of Wales. I did not notice it in the speech of the Secretary of State, and I do think that I have heard it in


other speeches, yet is is an increasingly important matter in a coutry which was so devastated by the Industrial Revolution.
If I may give credit for what the previous Government did in that respect, I remind the House first of the continued and increasing amount of moneys spent on derelict land. It is fairly said that some South Wales valleys bear no resemblance to what they looked like before 1967. I say to the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. Thomas) that I can hardly count the number of times when I have visited his constituency, with much pleasure, in order to inaugurate a new derelict land reclamation scheme. Long may that process continue. I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to find funds to go on with this necessary work.
It is not only on derelict land reclamation that we need to spend our environmental attention. We need to continue exercises in respect of oil pollution prevention, and with the experiments on testing metal prevalent in the air, if such metal pollution is there. We must continue to concentrate upon improving the cleanliness of our rivers, again a feature of work carried out over the last few years. I should not like this debate, which has often referred to what has happened over the past three and a half years, to overlook the significant part played by my right hon. and learned Friend when he and I were at the Welsh Office.
There was one comment in the Secretary of State's speech to which I might add an observation. Naturally, he was at pains to talk about housing figures. Over the years all of us in the House have used housing figures to suit ourselves. May I repeat what I said when I was sitting on the Front Bench opposite: that housing in Wales or anywhere else cannot be looked at only in the context of the public sector. It is the public sector plus the private sector, plus the improved houses that should be considered, because they form the total housing stock.
I give the figures again. In 1970 the total in round figures of public plus private sector houses, plus improved houses, was 26,000 houses. The figure for 1973 was 42,000 houses. Those figures

tell a tale, and it is not a tale of neglect by the previous Government.
I conclude by wishing the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his two colleagues as successful and pleasant a term of office at the Welsh Office as my right hon. and learned Friend and I had.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. Denzil Davies: May I also extend my congratulations to you publicly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on your elevation to your high position in the House. Your appointment has been greeted with admiration in Wales, and with approval from both sides of the House, but especially among your numerous friends throughout Wales. I congratulate too my right hon. and learned Friend and hon. Friends on their appointments to the Welsh Office. I am sure that they will do their utmost to further the well-being and welfare of our nation.
In the short time available, I shall discard most of what I had prepared for my speech and make a few remarks about the Kilbrandon issue and the constitution. I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his announcement that a White Paper will be published very soon, to facilitate full consultation. I hope he will resist the blandishments or threats of those who say that he should set a date or a time limit upon that consultation. I believe that one of the errors into which the previous administration fell was that on many matters they promised consultation, they brought forward Green or White Papers, and before any consultation was possible they brought in a Bill which was enacted into law after very little debate in the House. I hope—indeed, I am sure—that we shall not have that experience repeated, especially in respect of something so important as the machinery of government and the constitution of the United Kingdom.
I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will not fall into the error, if that be the correct word, of believing that it is possible easily to fit into a new elected assembly in Cardiff, which we all want to see, substantial legislative powers, especially at the beginning. I believe that there are considerable difficulties involved in trying to set up machinery in Cardiff which would involve legislation.
Those difficulties were mirrored and shown by the reports of the six members


of the Kilbrandon Commission who made that recommendation. They had to say, logically, that once there was legislative power in Cardiff the office of Secretary of State for Wales should cease to exist. That might have been the right thing in logic, yet we all agree in this House that it should not happen. Again, in logic, they had to argue that, if there was to be legislation in Cardiff, there should be a reduction in the number of Welsh Members of Parliament. That is a logical extension of what they were advocating. Most hon. Members, however, including, I believe, members of the Welsh National Party, would say that there should not be a reduction in the number of Welsh Members.
Finally, in recommending a legislative body in Cardiff, the Kilbrandon Commission had to consider the difficult problem of how to raise the revenue. Once one confers the power to legislate in a substantial way, one has to give that body some authority, some means of raising money, because without the power of taxation or the power of raising money the power of legislating is a mere sham.
The Kilbrandon Commission went to the ridiculous extreme of proposing some kind of exchequer board, an exchequer board which I understood not to be democratically controlled, not to be democratically responsible, and to be composed of people who were not very active in public life. That was the machinery the Royal Commission was forced to propose in order to try to give this legislative body some kind of power over its own finances.
I believe that this process is extremely difficult, and I hope that at the initial stage we shall not be seduced into believing that it is possible to invest the directly elected assembly in Cardiff with any legislative function.
The elected assembly can do three things and it can take over three powers. If it does so, it will make a substantial contribution to good government and democracy in Wales. These have been mentioned before. First, there are the nominated bodies. There is a very strong case for having the nominated bodies placed under the jurisdiction of a democratically elected Welsh assembly so that their decisions can be made publicly and the people who make those

decisions can be responsible to the electorate of Wales.
Secondly, I believe that there is also a case for devolving certain executive powers upon a directly elected assembly in Cardiff. We have heard hon. Members on both sides raising constituency problems, some involving hospitals, some involving roads and others involving schools. This is just about the only opportunity, apart from the Welsh Grand Committee, that we have in this House to raise these matters publicly. We have to use this forum, which is not the ideal forum, to raise these matters publicly which affect our constituents.
Many of the decisions involving hospitals, schools and roads which are taken by the Secretary of State for Wales—they are executive, not legislative, decisions—could be devolved upon a directly elected Welsh assembly, not because the decisions or the end results might be different but because the people of Wales could then see how the decisions were arrived at in a democratic manner. That is very important in a democracy. We have heard tonight about the alienation which exists between the governed and the people who govern them. It is very important in a democracy that decisions should be explained to people, that they should be able to see how those decisions are arrived at and the difficulties of the Government in coming to decisions.
If we could devolve some of the Secretary of State's executive powers upon a directly elected assembly in Cardiff we would make a substantial contribution to democracy and good government in the Principality.
Thirdly, we could possibly make some investigation into the possibility of having instruments that affect the Principality of Wales debated and passed in the Welsh assembly. In the last Session I served on a Select Committee looking into ways of improving the procedures for debating statutory instruments. Often, because of the pressure of time, it is not possible to debate certain matters.
Again, I ask my right and hon. learned Friend to look at the possibility, once we have established the directly-elected assembly, of transferring the consideration of some statutory instruments to that assembly so that they may be debated publicly in Wales.
It is important, as the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) said, to realise that what we are trying to do is to contribute towards greater democracy in Wales and greater responsibility in decision making so that people in Wales may see the decisions being taken. Quite apart from the devolution of power, there are many decisions today which are taken behind closed doors by good and worthy men who may come to the right decision. However, it is important that we should set up machinery to enable the public actually to see these decisions being made, to debate them and try to influence the people who make the decisions.
I welcome the speed, not the haste, with which my right hon. and learned Friend is approaching this problem. If we in this Parliament can present the people of Wales and the United Kingdom with a Bill to set up an elected assembly in Cardiff with substantial powers, I believe that we shall have made a major contribution to good government and democracy in our nation.

9.1 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: ; First, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to join with other hon. Members who have congratulated you. It is a great pleasure to see you in that seat. I should like also to congratulate my hon Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Grist) on his maiden speech, which was as competent and well-informed as we knew it would be.
While I am in a congratulatory mood, I am delighted to congratulate a fellow Royal Welch Fusilier on his assuming such an important responsibility. We may not always like his politics, but at least we know he has received a proper training in service. I wish him well. However, I should like to say this to him. If he is to do well in this Parliament he must recognise that he is the spokesman of a minority Government, following the greatest setback that his party has suffered in Wales for a generation. Nowhere is this more true than in rural Wales.
A well-known agricultural journal said this about the matter:
Their appreciation of agricultural economics was woefully lacking in their last Administration which closed in 1969 and 1970

with farming at its lowest ebb for many years and with demonstrations in the streets of market towns and auction marts. Their manifesto and their public speeches offer us no hope for a better deal next time".
Rural Wales will be watching this Government with real anxiety. It has little confidence in a Labour Party that it has almost swept from the Welsh countryside. The farmers, like every other section of the community, have been caught up in the economic whirlwind—the 90 per cent. increase in world commodity prices, the 250 per cent. increase in the world price of grain and the fourfold increase since November in the price of oil.
Until the whirlwind struck in the summer, farmers had enjoyed a period of expansion and relative prosperity. They had benefited from the emergency injection of October 1970 which was a blood transfusion to pull them up from six years of Labour neglect. They had had the three good reviews that followed, including that of 1972, which I think is acknowledged to have been one of the best in history. They had seen production expand at four times the rate of the previous six years. Within a period of a few months it was brought home to them with a vengeance that farmers could not hope to escape the consequences of world events, and that no group had a greater interest in the central issue of our time, the fight against inflation.
The Conservative Government took action in the price review to correct the plight of the milk producers. They took what one NFU spokesman described as unprecedented action to meet an unprecedented situation. The new Government now have a duty to show that, despite the forebodings, they recognise the vital rôle of agriculture in the economy. They have an immediate and urgent task to save the pigmeat sector, of which many right hon. and hon. Members have spoken, from disaster.
My right hon. and learned Friend the former Secretary of State undertook before the election to seek to renegotiate the monetary compensatory amounts so that they no longer have the effect of giving the Danish producers an advantage of about £3 a bacon pig. The effect of currency changes has been to distort the present. EEC mechanism, and in effect the producer is now subsidising the consumer. Corrective action is urgently needed


The recent award did not cover beef producers. Farmers had been eagerly, even desperately, awaiting the outcome of the discussions in Brussels. It is unfortunate that one consequence of the election has been to delay those discussions. What is now imperative is that the Government do not allow their dislike of Europe, or their desire to renegotiate, to postpone or interfere with the need to bring these agricultural negotiations to a successful conclusion. Welsh beef producers will look to the Government to defend their interests.
I am bound to tell the Government that already we differ about what constitutes a reasonable response to an urgent situation. I refer to the crisis that we now face in Milford and the probability, rather than the possibility, that within a week or two the whole of the Milford fishing industry will be closed down.
The fishermen, like the farmers, have been catastrophically hit by a rise in prices, this time by the increase in fuel costs that has taken effect only within the past few weeks. The industry presented the facts to me in the middle of the election campaign. Immediately upon the appointment of the new Government, I wrote to the Minister of Agriculture and to the Secretary of State for Wales asking them to meet the trawler owners as as matter of urgency.
A week later I received a letter from an assistant private secretary saying that he would show my letter to his Minister as soon as possible. I telephoned the private office and explained that 500 people would be out of work by the end of the month, and again called for an urgent meeting. I again wrote to the Minister. I asked the Secretary of State for Wales an Oral Question on Monday and received from the Under-Secretary a rather unhelpful answer.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is making a plea with which sympathise. I am well aware of the problems of the fishermen of Milford, but those problems existed several months before the election. Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell the House what action he took in relation to his own right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries before the election?

Mr. Edwards: The right hon. Gentleman is misinformed about this matter. I have the information from the Milford fishermen. The large fuel price increase that has hit them so badly did not take effect until February and they asked me to go to see them and they presented the facts to me, as I have already said, only during the election campaign. The same day I wrote to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and spoke to my right hon. and learned Friend the then Secretary of State for Wales. In order to get a reply in a reasonable time from the Government, I then had to speak to the Under-Secretary and to the Ministry of Agriculture and warn them that I intended to raise the issue in this debate.
Yesterday I received a letter from the Minister of Agriculture. It said:
Since writing to me, and similarly to John Morris, you have of course had his reply on the 18th March to your Oral Question. As he made clear in answering your supplementary he and I have to look very carefully at any question of special assistance, and if you were to bring the trawler owners to see either of us at the moment it would frankly not be possible to tell them anything.
It went on to say:
I hope therefore that you will agree that the best course will be for me to let you know as soon as we are ready for a useful exchange of views.
Last night I spoke to the right hon. Gentleman and told him in the clearest possible terms what that letter meant. It means that the onus is now on the Government. They do not want to discuss our proposals, or any possible solutions, with us. The responsibility is therefore on them to produce solutions, but they only have a few days to do so.
Faced with this crisis, Ministers appear to be sitting fiddling, not while Rome burns, but while the last major fishing fleet is laid up and 400 to 500 men lose their jobs. If the Government do not do something soon, the epitaph of the Milford fishing industry may well be "It died because a Labour Government did not care".
How much do they care about the problems of rural transport? Another casualty of the General Election was the Road Traffic Bill, which contained important clauses that would have made it easier to provide minibus and other transport services in the countryside. I hope that the reference in the Queen's


Speech to the improvement of public transport means that action will be taken to reintroduce similar clauses.
The Conservative Government kept open uneconomic railway lines in Wales. History or political legend relates, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that a previous Labour Government kept those lines open because they ran through marginal constituencies, and you may remember the tale. Those railway lines still run through marginal constituencies, but there is a much better reason for their existence: they have a key rôle in Welsh economic and social life.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) has said, we should like to see railway lines in Wales become the responsibilties of the Welsh Office. It can be done, and I hope that it will be done.
I refer to two matters that concern rural Wales. The first is the wish of hon. Members on both sides of the House to sec the continued expansion of new towns in Mid-Wales. There was a remarkable contrast between the remarks of the right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State on this subject today and the pre-election speeches of Labour Members in the debate on 16th January. I had planned to quote from remarks made by Mr. Elystan Morgan in that debate, when he acknowledged the progress made. It is not now necessary to quote those remarks because the right hon. and learned Gentleman pointed to the substantial progress in Newtown and and to the more encouraging trends in Mid-Wales. It is heartening that for the first time for decades there has been a population increase in Mid-Wales. I am also glad to learn that the Government will try to maintain the momentum established by Conservative administrations, and I remind the House that that Government authorised the construction of 27 new factories or nursery units in Mid-Wales.
In the debate of 16th January, Mr. Elystan Morgan chided us for neglecting the western side of Mid-Wales. I have one proposal to make. If the Celtic Sea proves to be a source of oil, that will be an opportunity to establish at the University of Wales at Aberystwyth a department concerned with the whole range of underwater technology. Then we can

build around it one of the science-based industries that will be one of the inevitable by-products of these new developments. We must not allow Scotland to pick up all these benefits.
I want to make one brief reference to housing. I intervened to tell the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) that the number of public sector housing starts had declined every year since 1964. He denied it, but I have the figures here. He was correct in saying that completions had declined every year since 1967. In 1970 the present Under-Secretary gave us an explanation. There is now a record of 10 years of failure by both Governments in this respect. I believe that together we must find new ways to reverse the trend. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will offer positive proposals because, looking back at our debates on this subject, I find a lack of constructive ideas.
I turn now to industrial Wales where the story of the last decade has been that of a switch from dependence on the old industrial base of iron and coal to a broadly-based economy. In his maiden speech on Monday the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) said that we had failed—I do not know where he is tonight—but he was wrong. Despite the difficulties, Governments of both parties have met with some success in this area.
My right hon. and learned Friend pointed to some of our achievements. In the sixties, per capita investment in Wales was almost twice that of the rest of the United Kingdom. In 1970, 120,000 new jobs were created in Wales to offset redundancies in old industries. The process has continued. Projects brought forward under the Industry Act since 1972 will provide more than 28,000 new jobs in manufacturing industry. Since 1970 there has been a substantially higher rate of growth in Wales than elsewhere in the United Kingdom, and there has been encouraging progress in attracting new jobs to the steel towns.
Unemployment, which for so long was about double the figure for Britain as a whole, fell at the end of the year to its lowest level for nine years, 3·2 per cent., compared with 2·2 per cent. I do not share the gloomy view that the exceptional events of the last three months indicate—as the light hon. and learned


Gentleman appeared to suggest—that the seeds of deterioration had been sown.
The new Government are to look again at the British Steel Corporation's plans, although I think that they are not seeking to reopen the basic strategy. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that there was much for Wales to welcome in that strategy. When we debated that strategy over the last year or so, it was sometimes a little hard to judge that that was so. It was hard to judge that we were dealing not with an ill-considered attack on individual communities but with a massive programme of modernisation and enlargement, with the object of placing us in a position to compete with the rest of the world and with the object of safeguarding the jobs of those who will remain in the industry and have to face that competition.
I hope that, as Ministers re-examine the details of the strategy, they will recognise the good faith of the BSC and will agree with the Chairman of the Welsh Council that the right road has been taken, that they will withdraw charges previously made of mendacious trickery and that they will concentrate their energies on building a new economic future for Wales.
I have a profound confidence that the long-term future is good, a confidence built upon our solid advantages. We have a labour force with an unrivalled sense of community. We have the sites for heavy industry alongside deep water, with, close by, in and near the valleys, the supporting and finishing industries; and we have the fresh investment of the last decade, now reinforced as a consequence of our entry into Europe. We have good and improving communications and, to cap it all, the strong possibility of a new source of indigenous fuel.
That brings me to the first of the two factors which could cast a blight over the bright prospects for industrial Wales—nationalisation and the economic crisis springing from runaway inflation. The Labour Party in its manifesto undertook to nationalise all companies involved in getting and distributing North Sea and Celtic Sea oil, and also the ports, shipbuilding, ship repairing and marine engineering. If the Labour Party wins another election, that means that most of the dockside firms in South Wales will

be taken over. This week the Government have reaffirmed their determination to go ahead with that policy.
It may be argued—I do not accept it—that that would all be spendid. I leave those who think so to think it. What cannot seriously be questioned is that there would be devastating consequences for our otherwise bright prospects in the Celtic Sea. I believe that, given the choice—and the choice exists—of setting up their bases in South Wales and being nationalised or going abroad to Ireland, the oil companies and the accompanying service companies would undoubtedly set up their bases in Ireland. Given the choice—again, it exists—of using limited resources and scarce drilling rigs in British waters and being nationalised or working offshore in other parts of the world, can one doubt the pressure on the international oil companies to go elsewhere—to go to the American seaboard or to Greece, where oil has just been discovered, or to Indonesia, Australia or elsewhere?
If hon. Members opposite will not accept the argument that nationalisation would delay the recovery of the oil, I remind them that their own study group which reported in 1967 said:
Nationalisation would be likely to delay the exploitation of the new wealth of energy which lies under the North Sea".
This month Lord Balogh wrote:
I hope that the Labour Party's programme in this field will be speedily and drastically reconsidered".
Electoral realities have, for the time being, seen to that. As far as I can judge from the obscurities of the Queen's Speech, the programme has been speedily and drastically reconsidered.
We can all agree that the nation should take a substantial share of the oil revenues while allowing sufficient incentive to induce the oil companies to operate with the vigour that we require.

Mr. Padley: Like Norway.

Mr. Edwards: I do not for one moment accept the contention that we are dealing with Scottish, Welsh or East Anglian oil. Any oil from the Celtic Sea is likely to come ashore through Pembrokeshire, but it may well be Cornish oil. Both the Shell and BP wells are much nearer to the Scilly Isles than to Wales. We may


get Irish oil brought ashore here; we already have Irish supply boats operating out of Pembroke Dock. That does not make it our oil.
I have no desire to claim the oil exclusively for Wales, but I have a keen desire to provide jobs and opportunities for Welsh people. Surely what matters is that, if the oil is there, we get it ashore, and obtain the maximum benefits for Britain and use them to the best possible advantage for all our people.
The urge for political and economic fragmentation of our small island is becoming an obsession. It should be resisted. We should be ensuring that proper machinery is established so that the planning implications are fully considered, the necessary infrastructure provided and every encouragement and assistance given to Welsh industry to seize its opportunities.
A Conservative Government would have set up an advisory panel under the chairmanship of the Secretary of State for Wales to deal with this matter. The new Secretary of State has undertaken to look urgently at the various possibilities. I hope that he will reach an early conclusion. I hope, too, that he will announce the decision to supplement the IMEG Report, which dealt only with the North Sea and bad nothing to say about Welsh industry.
I have referred to political fragmentation. To the new nationalist Members, had they been here tonight, I would say that it is no solution to deep-seated economic problems to say that they require political solution. As my hon. Friend the Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) said, there is no evidence that lack of energy or time resulted in our failure to solve our problem. In their first weeks in Parliament, the new Members have been able to ask Questions of the Secretary of State for Wales, speak on Welsh problems in the debate on the Address and speak in the debate on Kilbrandon yesterday, and one hon. Member took part in the debate on Welsh affairs tonight. They should not be misleading the Welsh people with a political will o' the wisp that can end only in frustration and disappointment. They should be producing a solid practical pro-

gramme of proposals related to our place in a British and a European economy.
As to the structure of government; the Government are right to consult, because the options are still numerous. On the Conservative benches we favour executive devolution. We think that it would be wrong to remove the influence of a Welsh Secretary in a British Cabinet; we welcome the right hon. and learned Gentleman's comment this afternoon on that subject. Above all, we consider that before we undertake a major administrative and constitutional upheaval we should be certain of its consequences and certain that we have the support of the Welsh people as a whole.
No group can claim to speak for the Welsh people on this issue. Certainly the hon. Member for Caernarvon and the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) should be careful before making such a claim. The Government will have our support if they consult carefully and in due course produce constructive and well-thought-out proposals that obtain a wide measure of public support.
I want to say one word about Hirwaun. I take up the effective point made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman about the people at the other end of the road—those who are affected when planning decisions are held up and we cannot get our roads built. Of course there are people along the roads who are affected, but others too are affected. The hon. Member for Abertillcry (Mr. Thomas) spoke on this matter. That is the position at Hirwaun—people are affected locally, but many others over a wide area are affected.
The time will be soon coming when we shall have to ask the Government what they propose to unstick this lag jam. We all hope that the discussions which are about to take place will help in that respect.
I spoke earlier of there being two threats to the bright prospects for the Welsh economy. The first is nationalisation. The second is the inflationary crisis with which we are now faced, the magnitude of which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North said, is too little understood. Far more important than regional incentives, infrastructure improvement or the work of task forces is


the economic climate in which we have to operate. The right hon. Member for Anglesey spoke on this subject earlier in the debate.
When the economy expands Wales, with its attractions for investment, does well. When we have stagnation and deflation Wales, with its inheritance of outdated and declining basic industries, does badly. The present Foreign Secretary and the last Labour Government undertook economic policies from 1966 onwards that forced up unemployment in a single year in Wales by 15,000 and created conditions that made a further substantial rise inevitable.
Whatever Labour Members may care to say, it was Conservative policy that dramatically restored the position in 1973. The tragedy of the present situation is that the Labour Party has abandoned any policy to fight inflation. It is no longer a free agent. In the words of a former Labour Minister, it is now captive to a sectional interest. As a direct consequence of that abandonment, we now face alternatives that seem almost too awful to contemplate—either massive deflation with unemployment that would be unacceptable to all of us, or inflation running right out of control to levels that would destroy our society and our political institutions.
The Secretary of State had almost nothing to say about the central issues upon which the future of the Welsh people depends. The Welsh people have to understand that a Labour Government have already hacked a giant hole in the dam. If they keep on hammering away at it, if they increase Government expenditure and settle every wage claim on the basis of strike power, the dam will collapse and the water will soon be rising over the heads of the Welsh people.

9.23 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Edward Rowlands): I hope that you will permit a personal word to you Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is eight years to this night that, in a side room of Sophia Gardens Pavilion, a very green, nervous candidate walked around you, pacing up and down a dozen times, as he prepared to meet the first of his major political occasions when the present Prime Minister spoke there on the

eve of the 1966 election. It was you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, who put your hand on my shoulder and calmed me down, and you have been calming me down politically ever since. You once said that you had been my teacher in politics. I do not know what sort of a pupil I have been, but I am very grateful to you for everything you have taught me both as a fellow parliamentary colleague in Cardiff and, for a short time, when I had the privilege of serving under you when you were Secretary of State for Wales.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Grist). I have a certain affection for part of the area he represents, which I know well. I have won, fought and lost an election in and around his constituency. We thank him for his thoughtful speech.
I should like to say to the former Secretary of State for Wales and the former Minister of State that harsh words have been said on our side over the past three years about Hereford and Hendon. We all acknowledge the tremendous work that both Ministers put in during the three-and-a-half year stint in the Welsh Office. The former Secretary of State has served two Prime Ministers——

Mr. Peter Thomas: Three.

Mr. Rowlands: Three Prime Ministers.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas) would have been better advised if he had read the memoirs of Mr. Macmillan before the election campaign started. A lot of other Members might well have done so. Mr. Macmillan made reference in the concluding volume of his memoirs to the fact that he as Prime Minister had learned one major political lesson, namely, never to quarrel with three groups—the Treasury, the Vatican and the NUM. I think the former Secretary of State would agree with me that it is the duty of any Secretary of State to quarrel with the Treasury. But if he had served not Hendon but Merthyr Tydfil, he would certainly not have quarrelled with either the Vatican or the National Union of Mineworkers.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The is a fourth category which I know my hon Friend will bear in mind, and that is the Presbyterians of Anglesey.

Mr. Rowlands: I certainly have no intention of quarrelling with the Presbyterians of Anglesey.
I welcome to the Opposition Front Bench the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards). His speech fell into two parts. The first part fell below the standard one would expect. I do not believe that it is the job of a Front Bench spokesman to raise a constituency matter in such a manner. He put forward a good honest collection of arguments; he was clearly fighting the last election.
The former Secretary of State raised a number of points about the economy and the industrial situation. He asked particularly about the steel review. I confirm that the review does not imply putting in jeopardy the British Steel Corporation's developments already announced for Shotton, Ebbw Vale and Port Talbot. That confirms what has already been said in the House by other Ministers.
The right hon. Member for Pembroke wanted to imply that all was well in 1973 and the beginning of 1974 almost until this election. In fact, the whole of the hon. Gentleman's speech seemed to imply that all the problems that have arisen happened from 1st March this year. Suddenly the agricultural industry and the farmers were penniless after 1st March. I think many hon. Members can testify that even in the industrial areas of Merthyr and Rhondda the National Farmers' Unions were calling upon us many months ago to complain most bitterly about the inactivity of the last Conservative Government in facing a number of particular problems relating to agriculture. It therefore ill suits the hon. Gentleman to cry crocodile tears about the situation facing the farmers. It was his Government that created the situation, just as his Government created the many housing problems facing us today.
He said he wanted to hear from me something about the housing position. Before putting aside the question of figures, let me tell him that in Pembrokeshire, where in 1967 607 houses were built in the county, in 1973 only 27 local authority houses were completed. I do not think Members of the Opposition and the former Secretary of State can wash their hands like Pontius Pilate of

the housing situation that has been created in Wales. After an expanding and growing programme in 1970 both in the local authority and private sectors it was felt by many local authorities that the housing problems were manageable. What happened after 1970, and what could not have been anticipated in 1970, was the almost anarchic and chaotic situation that would develop in the housing market. The situation was prompted and cajoled by the policies and activities of the previous Government. They drove house prices to record levels and priced out of the housing market young married couples. These young couples then turned towards the hon. Gentleman, who serves in his constituency surgery on Saturday mornings. Not just this year but for the last 18 months, two years or more they have been asking the local authority to build houses.
The former Government began to take an interest in local authority housing towards the end of their term of office, having spent years campaigning, on principle, against the development of local authority housing. We intend to get an improvement in the number of approvals granted. With new housing initiatives, to be announced by the Government, embodying the concept of the new resources we intend putting into housing, we shall deal with the problem.
The right hon. and learned Member for Hendon, South asked about future arrangements for the Welsh Council. The Secretary of State has this matter under consideration. It is clear that there will have to be some interim or temporary arrangement to deal with the period between the end of the term of life of the present Welsh Council and the coming into existence of the new assembly under the devolution proposals. There are one or two courses of action here, and my right hon. and learned Friend hopes to discuss them shortly with the Chairman of the Welsh Council and then to make an announcement as soon as possible.
My hon. Friends raised a number of constituency points and I hope that they will forgive me if I do not deal with all of them. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) referred to the by-pass in his constituency. It is expected that the draft proposals dealing with the line of the by-pass will be published in


June. Much will then depend upon the nature and number of the objections received. These will govern the starting date for the construction of this important road.
My hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Thomas) referred to the A467 between Crumlin and Aberbeeg. It is principally a road for which the local authority is primarily responsible. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be looking into this matter on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery. Another hon. Friend who has served in the capacity in which I now serve, my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Davies) raised the question of a medical school in Swansea, as he has done before. He has been most persuasive in arguing the case for a medical school in the city.
The Welsh Office has limited responsibility here because medical schools are the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the University Grants Committee. The Department of Health and Social Security and the Welsh Office are interested in parallel hospital provisions. My right hon. and learned Friend and I will be deciding carefully how far we can go, in the light of our priorities, in pressing on our ministerial colleagues the claims of another medical school in Wales.
Some issues have been surprisingly absent from the debate in view of their extreme importance. We are on the eve of one of the greatest upheavals in public administration the nation has ever seen. In April the whole of local government, the health service and the whole of the water service enter into reorganisation.
My personal view is that it was a remarkable piece of bad timing on behalf of the previous administration to manage to create such a simultaneous upheaval in these major areas of public administration and services. It is as much a tribute to the 115,000 and more people who work in these services as to central Government that they have manfully tried to make the best of it and respond to the task and challenges of reorganisation. I pay personal tribute to all those in these services—not just to the top officials, but to all those at lower levels who, over the past year or so, have had to suffer worries, anxieties and concern about their future.
At this eleventh hour it is the Government's duty to ensure that the re-

organisation does work, while at the same time we give notice that we shall be looking at and reviewing a number of aspects of the reorganisation of the services. It would be wrong for us—because we argued it persuasively from the Opposition benches—to conceal our dislike for many features of the reorganisation that has taken place. When we were in Opposition we opposed bitterly, and attempted to amend, many of these aspects, none more so than the 1973 Water Act which comes into force on 1st April.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) referred to the increased water charges arising from the 1973 Act. That is one of the most bitter legacies inherited from the previous Government. I had the dubious privilege of serving on the Committee and Report stages of the Bill when we expressed in the strongest terms our objection to the nature of the reorganisation. We have tried in some cases to alleviate the worst aspects of the Act through the domestic relief grant, but I realise that that does not help everyone.
This week, my right hon. and learned Friend and I met Lord Brecon to convey to him the strength of feeling about water charges. I can report to the House that Lord Brecon suggested that he would recommend to the members of his authority that it should modify the proposed charges for 1974–75 so that in no area would the charge to metered consumers exceed 50p per thousand gallons. At present farmers and industrialists in the counties of Anglesey, Brecon and Radnor and Cardiganshire are facing the prospect of a charge of up to 60p per thousand gallons. If the water authority accepts Lord Brecon's recommendation, it will go some way towards alleviating the burden on the worst hit counties.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his helpful response to the appeal which the Anglesey County Council and I made to my right hon. and learned Friend. So that we may clarify the position absolutely, is my hon. Friend saying that the proposed charge of 422 per cent. on the water rate will now be decreased to 50p? What is the percentage position?

Mr. Rowlands: I will repeat what I said, because it is important that this should be clarified. Lord Brecon suggested that he would recommend to the members of his authority that it should modify the proposed charges for 1974–75 so that in no area would the charge to metered consumers exceed 50p per thousand gallons. These are the farmers and industrialists in the counties who are facing the prospect of a charge of up to 60p per thousand gallons. From a maximum of 60p the charge will be reduced to a maximum of 50p. I hope I have made clear that that suggestion is confined to the industrial and farming communities of those counties.

Mr. Hughes: What does that mean in percentage terms?

Mr. Rowlands: I do not know the percentage terms. We have tried to alleviate the burdens placed upon the metered consumers in these counties by an Act which we strongly opposed.

Mr. Peter Thomas: Is not the position that the Welsh National Water Development Authority is obliged to charge the true cost of water without the subvention that came in the past from the local authorities? There was a precept on the local authorities, a small addition for administrative costs. If the charge is reduced from 60p to 50p, who will make up the difference?

Mr. Rowlands: I cannot go into this in detail because Lord Brecon has not yet been able to discuss the matter with his own authority. The reduction will be covered by the savings that the water authority itself will undertake. The water authority will make savings to help to alleviate the burden placed on its most heavily hit metered consumers. That is what Lord Brecon will suggest to his authority.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Mr. D. E. Thomas (Merioneth) rose—

Mr. Rowlands: I am sorry, but I have many points still to cover and I am afraid I cannot give way any further.
On the question of Lord Brecon and the new water authorities, the authorities had to depend on estimates carried out by existing authorities in terms of water supply and sewerage, and there was no chance to investigate in detail the strength

of those estimates. There will be a review of estimates by Lord Brecon and his board in the normal course of the next financial year.
Inevitably, during this debate Kilbrandon and the establishment of an elected assembly has been raised. My right hon. Friend has spelled out the position and there is no need to add further to his strong statement of intent. However, our approach on devolution and Kilbrandon has been and is governed first and foremost by the Labour Party's belief in democracy—in the democratic control and supervision over community affairs—in all aspects of our community life. This is true not only at Welsh national level, but at all levels—that is to say, in the boardroom, on the shop floor, in the local community, and in our public services.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool spoke of the sense of alienation and remoteness in the nationalised industries and this is also felt in other areas of administration. Our approach to Crowther-Kilbrandon has always emphasised the urgent need to democratise areas of public administration in Wales, for the reasons which were so well described by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool. There are areas of public administration—and indeed both private and commercial, too—where effective democratic accountability is lacking or is pitifully weak. I believe that it is in these areas that the Welsh people wish to have a greater say in and control over the decisions which so greatly affect their lives.
This point can be no better illustrated than in one of the major areas for which my right hon. and learned Friend has given me the privilege of responsibility. I refer to the health service. It was our view in Opposition—a view which I reaffirm tonight—that the reorganisation of the health service carried out by the Conservative Government did not allow for sufficient democratic and public accountability. The voice of the patient and the consumer must be heard loud and clear, and the organisation and administration of the health service should not muffle that voice. That is why in our General Election manifesto we committed ourselves to giving to an elected assembly for Wales the responsibility and the authority for the overall planning and


development of the health service. Detailed study with the aim of implementing this pledge is under way.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves Kilbrandon, can he say whether he is in a position to give the assurance for which I asked—namely, that the Government have closed their mind to the possibility of attaching the Secretaryship for Wales to another Cabinet office?

Mr. Rowlands: This question does not arise. My right hon. and learned Friend made this clear in an intervention in answer to the right hon. and learned Member for Hendon, South. In other words, he said that the position in regard to Scotland and Wales was the same. There will be a Secretary of State for Wales as an intrinsic part of our proposals on devolution.
The arguments surrounding the issue about a Welsh national assembly is that it is not only at that level that we must ensure the most effective democratic supervision of our public services, particularly of our health service. In Opposition we believed that the new area health authorities, where considerable power in all aspects of the health service is being concentrated, should be more accountable and representative. We also felt that the community health councils might be the strong voice of the consumer that they were meant to be. We intend to see that these councils will be the strong voice of the individual and of the local community in health matters.
The reviews which we are undertaking with a view to making our health service more democratic and more democratised are not meant to be just academic, administrative and organisational issues—just more paper constitutions. Behind our democratic approach there is a practical purpose. It is to ensure that the priorities and needs of the individual and of the community in health as in other services are understood fully and are met within the limits of the resources available.
There is the feeling—how justified, I am not yet in a position to judge—that there are the Cinderella services in the health service, and the former Minister of State, the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) may share that view.

They are Cinderella services which in our view should be the princesses—the elderly, the handicapped and the industrially disabled. These are the seemingly unglamorous features of the health service, and they contrast with the headline-catching operations.

Mr. Alec Jones: My hon. Friend knows of my interest in the rehabilitation of those who have suffered industrial injury. Under the existing law, will it be possible to set up a special area health authority to deal with Talygarn?

Mr. Rowlands: With a number of others, my hon. Friend has taken a special interest in Talygarn and the problem of industrial rehabilitation. Indeed, they led a deputation to my hon. and learned Friend's predecessor, from whom they received sympathy but no action——

Mr. Peter Thomas: There was some action.

Mr. Rowlands: I agree that there was a little action. However, my hon. Friend has raised a specific point, and I confirm that certainly it will be possible for the Secretary of State to exercise powers under the Act to create a special health authority after 1st April. Therefore, the fact that the area health authority comes into force on 1st April does not preclude any new initiatives on Talygarn and the industrial rehabilitation services in Wales. I hope to make a further announcement about this matter very soon.
It is again my privilege to return to the Welsh Office and to be responsible in the Department for derelict land and environmental issues. I pay tribute to the work done by previous Governments to clear derelict land and to improve the environment. It is a responsibility which I accept gladly. I serve a community such as Dowlais which is ringed by tips, swept by smoke and pounded by lorries. Residents of the area do not need reports or experts to tell them what is wrong with the environment. It is impossible to hide 3,000 acres of derelict land in one borough.
It is a matter of great regret that the public expenditure cuts made by the Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer before the election bore heavily on the derelict land programme, which was cut


from £3·2 million to £2 million. Inevitably this means that there must be some sort of rationing. Action was taken before we came to power. But, to help us, local authorities have been asked to submit their derelict land priorities. I have asked them to submit them as a matter of urgency because I wish to announce shortly a new five-year derelict land clearance programme.
I mention one other aspect of environmental pollution. The offensive against visual damage to the environment is only one part of the battle. We have to fight against pollution in all its many forms, and we are quite as committed as the former administration to maintaining that offensive.
We can all see and smell atmospheric pollution in our different areas, and one has only to talk to anglers to recognise the public concern at the state of our rivers. I have a river in my constituency where the trout leap out of the water coughing with silicosis. I gather that the birds in Port Talbot wake up in the mornings coughing because of the smoke and fumes surrounding some of our communities.
We shall, with equal urgency, reintroduce a revised and amended Environment Protection Bill similar to the one that was before the House prior to the election. That measure will be designed to extend the existing controls over air and water pollution and over noise and waste disposal. Apart from that, the work of the Environment Protection Unit, established by our predecessors—we acknowledge their work in this respect—will continue and grow in strength.
It is unfortunate that, again as a result of economic circumstances which existed long before 28th February and which were created by the previous Government, public expenditure cuts in many areas have borne heavily on matters concerning pollution of our environment. It is unfortunate that the cuts previously made on local authority capital expenditure will affect our drive on the environment and the crucial services in the matter of sewerage and sewage disposal. These cuts will bring about the deferment of schemes which were designed to improve the conditions of rivers and coastal waters. Wales has a multitude of rivers and a tremendous area of coastline, both

of which are of almost incalculable value not only to those who live in Wales, but to holidaymakers. I pledge that all my personal energies, having been given responsibility for derelict land and environmental issues, will be directed towards the major environmental issues facing Wales.
Perhaps I may end on a personal note. I came into the House in 1966 as the youngest Member. I have fought four parliamentary elections in eight years. I was 6 ft. 2 ins, tall when I started. There is talk of another election, which would be my fifth, this year. However, I assure the hon. Member for Pembroke that my right hon. and hon. Friends are keen and eager to have a go if that is his wish.
It is a great honour for any hon. Member representing a Welsh constituency to serve in the Welsh Office in whatever capacity it may be, as two former Ministers opposite will testify. It is sobering to think that the Welsh Office will be celebrating its tenth anniversary this coming October.
There have been critical analyses of the rôle of the Welsh Office over the last decade. Indeed, I wrote one myself. However, I now affirm that the Secretary of State for Wales and the Welsh Office have done a tremendous amount for Wales and ensured that its people have had a greater say and are better served than they were before the establishment of the office in 1964. My Under-Secretary colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones) and I, under our Secretary of State, hope that we shall be able to continue the fine traditional service to Wales by Ministers who have served in this office.

Mr. Donald Coleman (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS' FUND

Ordered,
That Sir Nigel Fisher, Mr. Grimond, Mr. John Parker, Mr. Albert Roberts, Mr. George Strauss and Mr. Richard Wood, be appointed Managing Trustees of the House of Commons Members' Fund in pursuance of section 2 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1939.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

PARLIAMENTARY CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS FUND

Ordered,
That Mr. Arthur Bottomley, Sir Nigel Fisher, Mr. Grimond, Mr. Anthony Kershaw, Mr. John Parker, Mr. Albert Roberts, Mr. George Strauss and Mr. Richard Wood be appointed Managing Trustees of the Parliamentary Contributory Pensions Fund in pursuance of section 1 of the Parliamentary and Other Pensions Act 1972.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS (JOINT COMMITTEE)

Ordered,
That the Lords Message of 20th March relating to a Joint Committee of both Houses to scrutinise delegated legislation be now considered.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

Lords Message considered accordingly.

Ordered,
That a Select Committee be appointed to join with a Committee appointed by the Lords to consider:—
(1) Every instrument which is laid before each House of Parliament and upon which proceedings may be or might have been taken in either House of Parliament, in pursuance of an Act of Parliament; being

(a) a statutory instrument, or a draft of a statutory instrument;
(b) a scheme, or an amendment of a scheme, or draft thereof, requiring approval by statutory instrument;
(c) any other instrument (whether or not in draft), where the proceedings in pursuance of an Act of Parliament are proceedings by way of an affirmative resolution; or
(d) an order subject to special parliamentary procedure.
(2) Every general statutory instrument not within the foregoing classes, and not required to be laid before or to be subject to proceedings in this House only, but not including Measures under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919 and instruments made under such Measures, with a view to determining whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to it on any of the following grounds—

(i) that it imposes a charge on the public revenues or contains provisions requiring payments to be made to the Exchequer or any Government Department or to any local or public authority in consideration of any licence or consent or of any services to be rendered, or prescribes the amount of any such charge or payment;

(ii) that It is made in pursuance of any enactment containing specific provisions excluding it from challenge in the courts, either at all times or after the expiration of a specific period;
(iii) that it purports to have retrospective effect where the parent Statute confers no express authority so to provide;
(iv) that there appears to have been unjustifiable delay in the publication or in the laying of it before Parliament;
(v) that there appears to have been unjustifiable delay in sending a notification under the provisio to subsection (1) of section four of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946, where an instrument has come into operation before it has been laid before Parliament;
(vi) that there appears to be a doubt whether it is intro vires or that it appears to make some unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the Statute under which it is made;
(vii) that for any special reason its form or purport call for elucidation;
(viii) that its drafting appears to be defective; or
on any other ground which does not impinge on its merits or on the policy behind it; and to report their decision with the reasons thereof in any particular case:

Ordered,
That Mr. Ronald Bell, Mr. Cryer, Mr. Denzil Davies, Mr. Arthur Latham, Mr. Graham Page, Mr. Paul B. Rose and Mr. David Waddington be Members of the Committee:

Ordered,
That Two be the Quorum of the Committee:

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to appoint one or more Sub-committees severally to join with any Sub-committee or Sub-committees apointed by the Committee appointed by the Lords; and to refer to such Sub-committee or Sub-committees any of the matters referred to the Committee:

Ordered,
That the Committee and any Sub-committee appointed by them shall have the assistance of the Counsel to Mr. Speaker and, if their Lordships think fit, of the Counsel to the Lord Chairman of Committees:

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House and to report from time to time, and that any Sub-committee appointed by them have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House:

Ordered,
That the Committee and any Sub-committee appointed by them have power to require any Government department concerned to submit a memorandum explaining any instrument which may be under their consideration or


to depute a representative to appear before them as a Witness for the purpose of explaining any such instrument:

Ordered,
That the Committee and any Sub-committee appointed by them have power to take evidence, written or oral, from Her Majesty's stationery Office relating to the printing and publication of any instrument:

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to report to the House from time to time any Memorandum submitted to them or other evidence taken before them or any Sub-committee appointed by them from any Government department in explanation of any instrument:

Ordered,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee that before reporting that the special attention of the House be drawn to any instrument the Committee do afford to any Government department concerned therewith an opportunity of furnishing orally or in writing to them or to any Sub-committee appointed by them such explanations as the department think fit:

Ordered,
That is to be an Instruction to the Committee that they do consider any instrument which is directed by Act of Parliament to be laid before and to be subject to proceedings in this House only, being—

(a) statutory instruments, or drafts of statutory instruments;
(b) schemes, or amendments of schemes, or drafts thereof, requiring approval by statutory instrument; or
(c) any other instrument (whether or not in draft), where the proceedings in pursuance of an Act of Parliament are proceedings by way of an affirmative resolution;
and that they have power to draw such instruments to the special attention of the House on any of the grounds on which the Joint Committee are empowered so to draw the special attention of the House; and that in considering any such instrument the Committee do not join with the Committee appointed by the Lords.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them with such of the said Orders as are necessary to be communicated to their Lordships.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Coleman.]

PEAK DISTRICT NATIONAL PARK

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Frank Hooley: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a matter which is of importance not only

to Sheffield, part of which I have the honour to represent, but nationally. One of the greatest acts of the post-war Labour Government between 1945 and 1951 was the creation of national parks, specifically designed to preserve and enhance the natural beauty of certain areas and to permit the enjoyment of that beauty by the general public. Those were the principles underlying a great piece of legislation which was passed for the preservation of scenic beauty and the enjoyment thereof by the people of the country.
I was appalled, therefore, to learn not long ago of the proposal to drive a motorway through the Peak District National Park, linking South Yorkshire to South Lancashire and, specifically, Sheffield with Manchester. In August 1972 the then Under-Secretary of State for the Environment announced that the Secretary of State had decided to include in the trunk road preparation pool a scheme for a major new route between Manchester and Sheffield. The announcement stated that, of several alternative routes considered, that which lay in a corridor from Hyde bypass in the west along the south side of the Longdendale Valley to join the M1 near Chapeltown was preferable from several points of view but especially from the environmental aspect.
I have had the pleasure of travelling through the Peak District National Park on hundreds of occasions, either north to south or east to west, and spending time in various parts of it. I have an immense admiration and liking for the Pennine Hills which are included in it.
I also take the view that the Peak District National Park is of enormous value to Sheffield, which must be the only industrial city in this country, and possibly in the world, which contains within its borders sections of a national park.
The existence of the Peak District National Park on the doorstep, or in the back garden, of Sheffield is of great advantage to the city, in so far as it may be able to attract tourists and people going to conferences, as well as captains of industry and others who may wish to promote commercial ventures in the city.
The national park is of enormous value to the people of Sheffield. It is for them a splendid natural playground in which they can enjoy recreation of many kinds.
The route proposed for the motorway has not been designated in detail. I am pleased to say that that stage has not been reached. But in accordance with the statement made in 1972, to which I have referred, it will follow a line along the Longdendale Valley across some beautiful wild moorland, along the north slopes of Bleaklow, across the gorge of the Etherow River—in other words cutting through the Pennines and across the Pennine Way, which is a great walkway from Edale to Scotland, with all the consequences that go with the construction of a motorway in a hilly district.
The Pennines are not mountains by continental standards, but they form one of the major ranges of hills in England, The consequence of the proposal must be the carving out of high embankments, deep cuttings, high viaducts, culverts for mountain streams, interchanges, slip roads, maintenance depots, sodium lights, fog lights, sign gantries and the whole general apparatus of a motorway.
In addition, apart from the physical construction of this monstrosity, there will be noises and fumes from heavy lorries climbing up to 1,500 ft. at the highest point, grinding away to get over the hills. With them will be the fast-moving cars racing down the gradients on the other side once they have got over the slope. The British Road Federation has the impudence to describe this as something which will melt unobtrustively into the landscape.
In my judgment, this exercise is wholly unnecessary. Just 11 miles north of the proposed route there is already the M62, a gigantic engineering undertaking, outside the national park although cutting across the Pennines. The M62 links industrial Yorkshire and industrial Lancashire and forms a very important road connection between the M1 and the M6. It seems an extraordinary proposition that we have to cut across the Pennines motorways at 11-mile intervals to provide adequate road transport between industrial Lancashire and industrial Yorkshire.
Apart from the M62, almost along the line of the proposed motorway exists the Woodhead railway, electrified and specially designed to carry freight between Sheffield and Manchester, between Yorkshire and Lancashire, which is grossly under-used. It is estimated that the

volume of traffic on the line represents about one-quarter of what is possible. If necessary, there could be up to 200 trains a day each way on the line carrying freight to a total tonnage of about 480,000. This would be equivalent to 24,000 20-ton lorries per day. One can imagine the volume of traffic that would mean, even if it were feasible, on a motorway across the Pennines, but the Wood-head railway is grossly under-used, was designed for freight purposes and does not consume one drop of the valuable oil which is also a charge on our balance of payments.
Another argument urged in favour of the new motorway route is that business men must rush across to the international airport at Ringway. But there is yet another railway line across the Pennines—the Hope Valley line, which can transport business men rapidly and in comfort and safety in one hour from the centre of Sheffield to the centre of Manchester. Even defenders of the proposed new motorway have to admit that a person will take 50 minutes to drive from one end to the other. Thus, for the sake of saving 10 minutes of travelling in what could be highly dangerous conditions, we are told that enormous sums must be spent on driving this new motorway across from Sheffield to Manchester.
I do not wish to sound totally negative. I understand that there are com mercial and industrial interests in Sheffield, and no doubt in Manchester, which genuinely feel that some substantial improvement in east-west road links in that part of the country is a necessity. That case should be examined with great care in the light of the M62, the Woodhead railway line and the Hope Valley railway line, which already exist, and of the ordinary roads across the Pennines.
Even if the case is substantial, it would be feasible to link the M1 and the M62 from junction 37 near Barnsley on the M1 to junction 23 near Huddersfield on the M62. This would provide a very good road route from Sheffield to Manchester which would be only 48 miles long, as compared with the 40 miles of the proposed Longdendale Valley scheme. About 30 miles would be existing motorway and it would not cost a penny extra. That distance would comprise 10 miles from Sheffield to Barnsley


and 20 miles along the M62 from Huddersfield to Manchester. The line of route would be outside the Peak District National Park, and the saving to the taxpayer—an argument which should appeal to the Sheffield Chamber of Commerce—would be at least £40 million at present values and probably vastly more by the time we got round to doing the job.
My main theme is not concerned with the detailed questions, the mechanics, the nuts and bolts of distances, transportation systems, roads from here to there, viaducts, culverts and so on. What I am primarily concerned with, and why I regard the matter as being of outstanding national as well as local importance, is the principle of preserving at all costs what remains of the natural beauty of our country and particularly of defending the concept of the national parks. If the scheme were allowed, it would create a catastrophic precedent for similar schemes to be proposed or conceived in other areas of the country where a national park or area of outstanding beauty happened to lie across the line where a commercial interest, a road federation or a set of lorry drivers wanted to drive their juggernauts from A to B with no hindrance.
Once we drive even one short motorway through a national park, the dam is breached and a catastrophic precedent is created. Such an act would be a crime for which we should never be forgiven by our children or our children's children.

10.12 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Carmichael): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) for this opportunity to hear the arguments for and against the Sheffield-Manchester road, and particularly for the very feeling way in which he expressed them.
I can reassure my hon. Friend at the outset. I should like to make it absolutely clear that no decisions have been taken. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not be in a position to decide whether any proposals he might put forward for a new road between Manchester and Sheffield should appropriately take the form of a motorway until he has considered a detailed report which is now being prepared by the Department. The

report will include an assessment of the volume of traffic which any new road would have to carry and of the standard of road which would have to be built to meet the predicted traffic demand.
The Government have inherited an ongoing programme of road construction. Its aims are to promote economic growth and to secure environmental improvements by linking major centres of population and the major ports and airports to each other and to the less prosperous regions, and by diverting long-distance traffic, particularly heavy goods vehicles, from a large number of towns and villages, including historic towns, generally to improve amenity.
We shall be examining that policy and the road construction programme that goes with it to ensure that it reflects an order of priorities with which we agree, and with which I think my hon. Friend would agree. There are options open to us. Apart from the total level of expenditure that should be devoted to the road programme, greater priority could be given to the construction of a network of routes to which heavy lorries could be confined for the lengthier part of their journeys. That would mean the construction of a network of roads rather than a series of not necessarily linked roads.
But because it now takes an average of at least 10 years to complete a major road project, the overall network must be planned well ahead if we are not to end up with a large number of unrelated routes. About half the 3,500-mile programme covered by the statement by the then Secretary of State in June 1971 has already been built. We are trying to plan altogether in this on-going road programme, so that the new roads will not become disconnected but will follow the pattern. It is against this background that the particular case for and against the Sheffield-Manchester route has to be seen.
The existing roads between the industrial areas of South Lancashire and South Yorkshire, as my hon. Friend said, cross very difficult country, particularly in the Pennines. They are few in number, generally of bad alignment, and have long sections of steep gradient. They are also subject to considerable traffic congestion, and journeys on them can be


both long and arduous. I do not believe that anyone would dispute that the existing direct road links are very poor and inadequate. There is, however, a wide range of strongly-held views about what should be done to improve the communications.
There is much movement of goods vehicles and private cars between South Yorkshire and Sheffield, and South Lancashire and Manchester. But also a good deal of prospective movement is at present suppressed or diverted to other fairly indirect routes because the direct routes are slow and difficult. The most direct routes pass across the Peak District and cut through the National Park. They are generally heavily loaded, have long steep gradients, can be blocked by snow in winter, and are tortuous and difficult to improve.
The M62 mentioned by my hon. Friend, from north of Manchester to south of Leeds, is providing a good cross-Pennine route for traffic, but although it will take a substantial volume of traffic from adjacent existing roads, it is inconveniently far north to meet demand for movement between the South Yorkshire and South Lancashire conurbations and industrial areas.
If nothing is done, it seems likely that the present routes through the Peak Park will continue to attract heavy traffic, including a high proportion of heavy vehicles which, particularly because of the poor standard of the roads, are frequently slow moving and delay other traffic. The result would be a complex of poor and overloaded routes which would intrude into the character of the Peak District as a National Park, delay traffic and arguably restrict the full development of the areas they link.
It was against this background that a major feasibility study was initiated by the Minister of Transport at the end of 1968. As is known, three main corridors were looked at: first, Longdendale Valley; secondly, North Derbyshire along one of three routes—Edale, Hope or Tideswell; and thirdly, Flockton or Holmfirth routes connecting the Ml to the M62. As a result of the work done, the then Secretary of State for the Environment decided that the most preferable route was likely to be that along the

Longdendale Valley and that the construction of the route there would encourage through traffic to use a single road designed to carry it and greatly relieve other roads in the Peak District National Park.
It should be made clear that the decision to admit the scheme, in August 1972, to the Preparation Pool did not represent a decision to build. It simply authorised the preparation of detailed plans in the Longdendale corridor, in consultation with the statutory authorities, including the Peak Park Board, to draft order stage. At that point there would be full opportunity for public debate, including I feel sure a public inquiry into where the route should be built. It will be appreciated, I am sure, that no informed public debate can really take place in the absence of fairly detailed proposals.
In addition, I can confirm that it is the firm intention to ask the public to make their views known on feasible alternative routes in this corridor before the Secretary of State decides on a preferred line to be worked up for publication under the statutory procedure. In deciding what are the feasible alternatives which should be put to the public, the Secretary of State will take full account of all the environmental, engineering and financial considerations and the views of the Peak Park Planning Board, the Countryside Commission and local planning and highway and other statutory authorities. In fact, these authorities have already been asked for their views on various alignments in the Longdendale corridor from which a choice of feasible alternatives for a completely new road might be made.
My hon. Friend mentioned railways, and I should like to comment on that subject. Among the alternatives put forward, there is a strong body of opinion favouring transferring as much freight traffic as possible to the local rail routes. Certainly we accept that we must constantly seek ways of attracting more and more traffic to this mode of transport, and over the past two years there has been a considerable shift of freight to railways, particularly to this line. However, I suggest that it is realistic to realise that generally the lorry remains the dominant mode of transport.
For example, in 1972 customers spent 18 times as much on road freight transport as on rail. The value in cost terms of goods travelling by road was £5,250 million compared with £290 million for rail. Those are the figures we are discussing. Passenger traffic car travel accounts for four times as much movement—measured as passenger miles—as all forms of public transport, and within public transport bus and coach travel accounts for about 60 per cent. more travel than rail. Eighty-five per cent. of the freight tonnage, 65 per cent. of the freight-ton miles and 91 per cent. passenger car miles are moved or completed by road.
We want to move as much traffic as possible to rail, but even if we were to increase the freight carried by the railways by 50 per cent.—that is a very high figure in terms of a transfer to the railway—it would reduce the total road traffic levels measured into passenger car unit miles by less than only 2 per cent. That is the equivalent of less than six months' normal growth in road traffic. Over the last five years the average increase in total traffic has been 4·6 per cent. per year.
With regard to the Manchester-Sheffield route, there are limitations to what can be done because of the problems of providing depot space in the very congested major urban areas at both ends. I am sure that my hon. Friend is at least as aware of the problem in a place such as Sheffield—perhaps more so than I am. Because of the variety of destinations to which goods have to be delivered, certain depots have to be provided and they are most expensive in terms of land.
For example, I understand the area between Manchester and Sheffield within the National Park produces considerable quantities of crushed rope for use in construction. This item is delivered to a variety of sites for which there is never likely to be any real access. Steps have already been taken to ensure that the particular interests of those concerned with the National Park are taken into account.
A joint working party, including the Department's representatives, the local highway authorities, the Peak Park Planning Board, the Countryside Commission and others, has held its second

meeting in Matlock today. At its first meeting on 29th January, the group made a general review of outstanding issues and traffic problems in the Peak Park and set in hand the review of existing survey data, which is essential as the basis of sound traffic management.
It is important that time should not be wasted but that practical policies should be framed as quickly as possible, relying as far as possible on existing information rather than waiting for elaborate new studies.
Existing measures taken by the local authorities show that a way can be found to handle leisure traffic properly. New ground must be broken in the area of unnecessary goods traffic in the park. The problem cannot be dealt with in absolute terms. The park is in the centre of a highly industrialised zone and is slightly different from other areas in that it provides raw material vital to the urban activities of the zone.
We must decide on the correct measures to divert road traffic loads from within the park. It is not an easy step from agreement in principle to the transfer of bulk loads from road to rail to finding the right practical approach, and in these difficult times the cost cannot be ignored. I can assure my hon. Friend that this work will be firmly pursued.
Already the Department has given undertakings about the sending of information of proposed road improvements, on roads for which the Department is responsible, to the Derbyshire County Council and the Peak Park Planning Board in such a way as to help to reduce the possibility of a clash of interests.
It has been suggested that it would be premature to advance the consideration of specific road proposals in the national parks until results are known of the overall study of transportation problems and policies within the parks which my Department is setting un with the affected local authorities. There is, however, no reason why the working of the trunk road scheme, as I have outlined in this statement, should not proceed concurrently with the study of transportation matters with exchanges of information as practical.
We have to work out the details of the scheme to allow for full public debate,


and the sooner the period of uncertainty about the form of the trunk road proposals is ended the better.
Time does not allow me to go into matters as thoroughly as I would like. My hon. Friend will understand that he can write to me or we can have a discussion about this later.
I am aware that this is a particularly sensitive road scheme. It involves a number of fundamental issues on which there will be strong feelings one way or the other. This has already been impressed upon me and on the Department by a number of representations which we have already received, and of course obviously from the debate and the way my hon. Friend expressed himself tonight.
Some representations expressed outright opposition to the principle of new major road works in national parks, and others, stressing the social and economic benefits of improved communication between the two industrial areas, urged early construction of the scheme.
Given that situation, I am most conscious of the need to ensure that no final

decision on the scheme is taken one way or another without the most detailed considerations of all implications, and without all the interested, elected and representative bodies and the public having had a full opportunity to advance their views. I hope that what I have said reassures the House and my hon. Friends that appropriate arrangements are being made to ensure that these conditions are satisfied.
In conclusion, I should like to say to my hon. Friend that, coming from that part of the world, I am only too conscious of the conflict in Scotland—particularly in the West of Scotland—between the needs of industrial development and the need to preserve as much of our natural inheritance as we can. I hope that, with these assurances, my hon. Friend will accept that we are trying to blend as far as possible industrial and environmental needs.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.